美女童服用美林布洛芬致盲 強生稱中國產品安全 北京新浪網 (2013-02-18 02:40) 近日，美國強生公司(以下簡稱強生)生產的兒童退熱止痛藥美林布洛芬導致美國一女童雙目失明的消息被傳得沸沸揚揚。《每日經濟新聞》記者日前走訪廣州5家藥店發現，美林布洛芬仍在正常銷售，並且通常擺在兒童用藥的顯要位置。相關藥店人員對記者表示，美林布洛芬是常用的兒童退燒止痛藥，較少有副作用。針對美林布洛芬致盲事件，強生健康專家咨詢熱線的醫生對 《每日經濟新聞》記者表示，上海強生制藥有限公司生產的美林布洛芬與美國生產的不同，國內的美林布洛芬可以安全使用。他已向相關醫院的醫生了解過，並沒有出現嚴重的不良反應。國內藥店仍在正常銷售/據美國 《紐約每日新聞》報導，2003年，美國七歲女童薩曼莎因服用強生生產的兒童布洛芬後發生嚴重的過敏反應，全身90%的皮膚灼傷，最終雙目失明。該女童父母以強生沒有明確告知藥品不良反應為由將強生告上法院。2013年2月14日美國法院判決，強生應對薩曼莎及其父母賠償6300萬美元。《每日經濟新聞》記者昨日(2月17日)致電廣東省藥監局藥品不良反應監測中心，該中心人員表示，目前並沒有接到關於停用美林布洛芬的通知，也沒有收到關於美林布洛芬的嚴重不良反應的報告。記者從廣州寶芝林、海王星辰、仁和堂、健民藥業、余慶堂等藥店了解到，布洛芬和乙氨基酚是常見的退燒止痛藥，其中強生的美林、葛蘭素史克公司的芬必得、北京韓美藥品公司的愛普生均含有布洛芬，並且都是消費者經常購買的品牌。記者咨詢三歲小孩該吃什麼退燒藥時，上述藥店的銷售員向記者推荐了美林牌和愛普生牌布洛芬混懸液。健民藥業的銷售員對記者表示，美林布洛芬的不良反應很少，並且美林還有專門為嬰幼兒生產的布洛芬混懸滴劑，這類退燒藥應該是比較安全的。寶芝林的銷售員則對記者表示，美林、泰諾林(強生集團)一直以來都賣得比較好，消費者是比較信任的。或跟女童體質基因有關/既然布洛芬被普遍認為是兒童退燒的安全用藥，為什麼會出現失明等嚴重不良反應？對此北京和睦家醫院全科主任王惠民對 《每日經濟新聞》記者表示，美國女童患病或跟個人體質和基因有很大關係。"這是特例，不能因為罕見的案例而因噎廢食，我還是會建議病人用布洛芬來緩解疼痛及發燒，這是适合孩子的藥。"王惠民對記者表示，布洛芬主要的副作用是偶爾會造成胃不舒服，長期使用可能會引起胃潰瘍。有些人用布洛芬片會起疹子，長期使用的人偶爾見胃出血，但幾率很小，臨床上很少看到嚴重的副作用。布洛芬能作為非處方藥在市面銷售，可見是非常安全的。針對美國女童服藥後出現的不良反應為中毒性表皮壞死松解癥，王惠民表示，該病例極為少見，100萬人才有0.5到1.3的病例，女性患病的幾率大於男性(1.5：1)，但是大多數人使用這些藥都是安全的。王惠民表示，上述患病的女童非常不幸，可能與個人的體質或者基因相關，但是醫院目前還沒有辦法得知誰會對這些藥物敏感。對於美國法院判決強生作出賠償，王惠民表示，在美國消費者比較強勢，該事件中法院采用的是薩曼莎的辯護律師的說法，即美林布洛芬的藥品說明衹有小小的警告，沒有提醒消費者存在潛在的不良反應。記者查閱美林布洛芬混懸液的說明書發現，在不良反應中列出了：少數病人可出現惡心、嘔吐、胃燒灼感或輕度消化不良、胃腸道潰瘍及出血、轉氨 升高、頭痛、頭暈、耳鳴、視力模糊、精神緊張、嗜睡、下肢水腫或體重驟增。罕見皮疹、過敏性腎炎、膀胱炎、腎病綜合征、腎乳頭壞死或腎功能衰竭、支氣管痙攣。其中確實提到了"視力模糊"這一項。
Family awarded $63 million over girl who
went blind, lost skin from Motrin 14, 2013BY: RYAN ARCIERO Though a family
awarded $63 million may be glad to have won their healthcare case, the
Huffington Post reported this Thursday, Feb. 14, that it doesn’t change the
fact a young child lost most of her skin and went legally blind after taking a
brand of Motrin almost ten years ago. Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to
pay the affected teen, Samantha Reckis and her parents, $63 million after the
child underwent a severe reaction from a pain reliever that resulted in her
losing her skin and going blind. Samantha Reckis was only seven years old when
she was given the Motrin brand, suffering a very rare, life-threatening side
effect called toxic epidermal necrolysis, leaving her without sight and with
over 90% of her skin gone. The child also suffered memory loss, brain damage, and
diminished lung capacity. The family awarded $63 million filed for the lawsuit
back in Jan. 2007, accusing Johnson & Johnson of not warning buyers the
drug could have such dangerous side effects. The five-week trial ended this
Wednesday morning in the favor of the family.
Family wins $63M lawsuit vs. Johnson and Johnson Reported by: Nicole Oliverio Posted:
02/14/13 at 5:45 am PLYMOUTH,
Mass. (WHDH) -- A Massachusetts family won a $63 million lawsuit against
Johnson and Johnson after a few doses of Children’s Motrin put their daughter
in the hospital. On Wednesday, a Plymouth
jury sided with Samantha Reckis’ family and attorney Brad Henry saying the
manufacturer, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, did not do enough to warn
the consumer about possible life-threatening risks of taking Motrin. The
lawsuit was filed six years ago. “A drug company that’s going to sell billions of doses of this
product has an obligation to warn people,” said Henry. In 2003, when Samantha
was 7 years old, she had a severe reaction to Children’s Motrin and was
diagnosed with toxic epidermal necrolysis, a potentially fatal skin disease. Samantha
spent six months in the hospital and left weighing only 33 pounds. She suffered
liver, kidney, GI and reproductive damage.“When they finally were able to wean her off pain medications and
take out the ventilation, within a couple of weeks she had a stroke because of
the liver damage. They had to drill through her head to relieve the pressure,”
said Henry. The firm representing Johnson and Johnson argues the bottle’s
warning is labeled appropriately and is a safe and effective treatment option
for pains and fever. The condition is extremely rare, affecting one in 1
million people, but Henry says just because it’s uncommon doesn’t mean the
company shouldn’t warn against possible reactions. “All we’re saying is that if parents
are in a position to give a discretionary drug to their child, they should at
least be given the option to know whether this is a good idea or not,” said
Henry. It has only been since 2005 that the FDA required the warning label to
include skin reddening, rash and blisters, which are symptoms to the reaction
Samantha had in 2003. If the ruling is upheld and Johnson and Johnson loses its
appeal, the Reckis family could see more than $100 million after interest is
added on to the original settlement.
Posts
