According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the agreement says Actavis cannot resume its practices until it conforms to “the agency’s good manufacturing practice.” Actavis must improve its labs, facilities, and equipment.

Actavis has faced numerous lawsuits over the recalled drug Digitek. One such lawsuit includes the death of a patient and claims that Digitek is an unsafe and flawed drug.

Actavis would not comment if the FDA agreement had influenced the Digitek lawsuits or not.

In April of this year, Digitek pills were recalled due to a suspicion of Digitek pills containing twice the active ingredient. Actavis Inc., the drug manufacturer, believes none of these pills made it to the public and that the recall was only out of “an abundance of caution.”

Unfortunately, many Digitek consumers are still unaware of the Digitek recall and the number of reported deaths associated with Digitek consumers. The FDA posted a Med Watch Alert for Digitek on April 28, 2008 due to the possibility of some of the pills containing double the active ingredient.

Health experts believe the FDA should have further investigated Digitek’s manufacturers and the FDA should have warned doctors, pharmacists, and consumers of the potential dangers associated with this drug. The FDA believes their actions in informing the public were consistent when compared to other drugs that have caused issues.

According to the West Virginia Record, Goodwin wrote, “Some complaints in this MDL action join multiple plaintiffs whose only apparent connection with one another is that they ingested the drug at issue.”

Goodwin gave all plaintiff lawyers a Dec. 31 deadline “to identify all multi-plaintiff actions subject to his order and propose a severance order.”

After the 30 days of separation, the plaintiff must file a revised complaint. Goodwin wrote, “The severed and amended complaint must contain the specific claims asserted by the plaintiffs named in it.”

In cases of husbands and wives as plaintiffs, Goodwin won’t sever the cases.

For deaths and illnesses associated with Digitek, plaintiffs seek compensation from the Digitek drug companies Mylan Pharmaceuticals of West Virginia and Actavis Group.

According to the West Virginia Record, the suit claims, “Digitek contains twice the approved level of active ingredient and a narrow therapeutic index, which means the medication has a limited margin between effectiveness and toxicity.”

Digitek has a negative history.  Since 2006, 11 or more complaints have been recorded about the dangerous side effects of the drug, which include injuries and diseases.

At this time, Digitek is the only heart medication that is supposed to correct atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter and heart failure. Instead of correcting these problems, Digitek has unfortunately lead some consumers to their deaths and has also affected numerous loved ones in the process.

Being filled with mental agony and grief are just a few ways John Anthony Conte has suffered in losing his wife to Digitek ingestion. Though John Anthony Conte seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his wife’s estate, his wife cannot be replaced.

Actavis claims that it has been dedicated to ensuring the value and integrity of its manufacturing since May 2008, which is after the FDA inspected Actavis because the company manufactured Digitek pills that were twice as thick as they ought to have been.

According to Market Watch, “The company views the filing of this complaint as one step in a long regulatory process, and is fully committed to working collaboratively and openly with the FDA in a timely manner.”

John LaRocca, Actavis Inc.’s Chief Legal Officer, says in response to the claim, “We have taken a comprehensive approach to correcting all deficiencies within the Totowa business, and we’ve communicated regularly and candidly with the FDA, the public, our employees and our customers. Last month, we asked FDA to return to the Totowa facilities, conduct an inspection, and observe the substantial progress we have made. To this point, the FDA has not acted. Our company takes these matters very seriously, and we remain focused on quality, innovation, and product safety. We look forward to a quick and satisfactory resolution to these issues for the benefit of consumers, the agency, and ourselves.”

According to the Associated Press, the suit requests the court to not allow Actavis Inc. and Actavis Totowa to manufacture drugs until the company complies with FDA regulations for testing, quality control, and test response. The company must also stop selling unapproved and misbranded drugs.

Filed by U.S. Attorney Christopher Cristie and the Department of Justice’s Officer of Customer Ligation, the suit states Actavis’ facilities in Totowa and Little Falls, N.J., have not only continued to fail FDA examinations, but Actavis has not made the required changes.

Between January 2006 and May 2008, the FDA examined the two facilities in Totowa and the one in Little Falls five times overall.

In April of 2008, Actavis recalled its heart drug Digitek due to pills being twice as thick as the original form. Due to the doses being doubled, Digitek posed a threat to its consumers.

The FDA discovered in the inspections that Actavis did not have complete lab records of its testing information, and did not verify that its testing methods “matched up with actual conditions under which the products would be used.”

These are just a few of many violations that continued throughout FDA inspections of Actavis.

Dingell and Stupak’s letter questions not only the FDA’s inspection of the company’s facilities, but if the FDA should have allowed this company to resume its operation, even though it has a history of recalls.

According to PharmTech, Congress wants the FDA to provide documents “on all FDA-regulated products that Acatavis received approval to sell in the United States since January 1, 2003.”

At the end of July, Actavis Totowa decided to voluntarily recall “the retail level of all drug products manufactured at its Little Falls, New Jersey, facility.” This recall took place after the FDA conducted an inspection of the company in April when Digitek was recalled because the pills were double in “the appropriate thickness.” In this third recall, the recalled pills are believed to have contained twice the correct amount of medication.

Digitek is not the only product that Actavis has recalled; in March, Actavis South Atlantic LLC recalled U.S-sold fentanyl transdermal system CII patches. They may have “a fold-over defect,” which may leak fentanyl gel.

The Actavis Group is not only the producer of Digitek but also many other products. According to Actavis’ website, Actavis is “one of the world’s leading players in first-class generic pharmaceuticals.” We will see just how much longer this statement remains to be true.

Sales for Lannett’s digoxin, a generic form of Digitek, still have been strong since the recall of Digitek in April of this year.

Because digoxin was not recalled, this company has been able to maintain a good financial report for the fourth quarter of the fiscal 2008 year. Especially after the Digitek recall, the company continues to work with the FDA to guarantee a safe and immense supply of this product.

Established in 1942, Lannett Company, distributing generic products for various symptoms, is a popular leader in the pharmaceutical industry. Lanett sells its products to drug wholesalers, retail drug chains, repackagers, distributors, and government agencies.

Digoxin has proven to be a safe and popular alternative to the recalled Digitek.

Across the United States, around sixty Digitek recall law suits have been filed in federal courts. The defendants include the following: Actavis Totowa, LLC, Actavis, Inc., Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Actavis US, Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals and UDL Laboratories, Inc.

Collective cases will be transferred to Judge Joseph R. Goodwin.

According to the news report, under federal court procedures, the purposes of transferring all cases to one judge for pretrial rulings eliminates duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings. Unlike a “class action,” where all suit are tried together, the MDL relates to pre-trial actions only. If a resolution or settlement is not reached, the cases go back to their respective districts for trial.

Journal editor Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen says the litigation process and the court system is a “key defense mechanism” to insure drug safety and to obtain justice if drug manufacturers have not made the risks involved with its product clear.

The doctors say the FDA is incapable of being the sole guardian of drug safety and that without the information supplied by liability litigation, “the American public would be deprived of a vital deterrent against pharmaceutical company misconduct.”

The opinion was submitted to the Supreme Court as a friend-of-the-court brief in the matter of Wyeth v. Levine, a case expected to be heard later this year. According to the AP story, the case involves Diana Levine, a guitarist who lost her right arm below the elbow after an injection of Phenergan. She sued the drug’s manufacturer, Wyeth, alleging the company had not adequately warned consumers of the risks associated with its product. The case was tried in Vermont, and the court agreed, awarding Levine $7 million.

Wyeth is appealing the case, saying the FDA had approved the drug, and that the state court could not overrule the FDA’s judgment.

However, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine sided with 47 state attorneys general and two former FDA commissioners in supporting Levine’s position, the AP report states.