A new lawsuit was filed in federal court concerning Truvada bone density loss allegedly suffered by the plaintiff secondary to ingesting a combination HIV drug.

The plaintiff, Eric S., has named Gilead Sciences Inc. as the defendant that manufactured and produced the medication which he alleges caused his Truvada bone density loss.

According to the Truvada bone density loss case, Eric S. was HIV-negative at the time he was prescribed the drug regimen, and he remains so to the present day. The plaintiff was encouraged to start taking Truvada as part of a preventative prophylaxis program in 2016 by his physician. The HIV combination drug was thought to lower the risk of having the virus transmitted to him while he remained sexually active.

The narrative of the lawsuit indicates that Truvada works in the HIV-positive recipient to discourage the virus from replicating in the patient’s system. This lowers the chance that the infected person will transmit the disease and, without replication, the immune system is not constantly taxed.

Relying upon Gilead’s presentation of Truvada and its benefits, the decision was made by Eric and his doctor to prophylactically ingest the drug from 2016 to 2018.

Gilead allegedly knew that the key ingredient in this medication tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) had to be taken in high doses to have any effect because it wasn’t absorbed easily by the body.

The high daily doses required to have the desired effect meant that Eric was exposed to high levels of TDF every day and his kidneys and bones purportedly had to manage the excess. This set the plaintiff up for issues with his renal system and Truvada bone density loss, he claims.

Despite their knowledge of the stress Eric’s skeletal system and kidneys were forced to endure, Gilead allegedly didn’t warn the professional medical community or patients taking the medication.

The first label for Truvada indicated that Truvada bone density loss was a possibility, but only in those patients with a prior history of osteoporosis and multiple fractures. Physicians were not encouraged to be concerned unless this red flag existed beforehan, the lawsuit says.

The complainant was not yet 40 at the time he started taking Truvada on a preventative basis. Had Eric had the full information at his disposal, the lawsuit narrative indicates that a different decision might have been made or he might have opted not to participate in the prophylaxis treatment altogether.

According to the report, Eric had what should have been an inconsequential fall in January 2018. This fall resulted in his forearm being shattered in several places with bone protruding through the skin. He needed surgical intervention and the addition of plates and screws to repair the arm. Eric says this injury was made worse due to the loss of bone density allegedly caused by Truvada.

Gilead is accused of not only failing to warn but of suppressing information regarding a similar drug that could be taken in lower doses and still be effective. This drug was found, tested, and put under patent, but not further developed until maximum profits had been squeezed out of the first formulation.

Eric claims that had Gilead warned and pushed this improved and less toxic version to market through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval process, thousands of HIV-positive patients and those undergoing preventative treatment like Eric might have been saved a great deal of suffering.

The Truvada Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-01906-JEB in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.