A patient recently filed a Truvada lawsuit, alleging that the HIV drug caused toxicity in his bones and kidneys due because his body could not sufficiently process the drug.

Plaintiff Christopher P. recently filed a Truvada lawsuit against Gilead Sciences Inc., alleging that the HIV drug is defective and hard to process, causing toxicity in the bones and kidneys.

Truvada is an HIV drug that uses the active ingredient tenofovir and is part of the antiretroviral medication class called nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). Truvada prevents HIV from replicating within the body, which reduces transmission rates and helps the immune system.

Christopher says he was diagnosed with HIV in 2008 and immediately began treatment with Truvada, which he took through 2009 via a daily pill. However, Christopher claims that his treatment with Truvada caused long term damage.

The drug allegedly has to be digested in high doses in order to be effective. Although this high dosing ensures that drug serum levels reach their desired levels in the blood, it can allegedly cause serious side effects. The high dose allegedly subjects kidneys and bones to an overexposure of tenofovir, Truvada’s main ingredient, which is potent and toxic.

Because tenofovir is retained in the bones and kidneys, Christopher claims, he suffered form bone mineral density loss and bone necrosis. He claims that due to these side effects, he was forced to undergo a bilateral hip replacement at only 30 years old.

Numerous adverse side effects are associated with Truvada including bone mineral density loss, bone necrosis (bone death), bone fracture, osteopenia, osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, kidney damage, and kidney failure.

The Truvada lawsuit claims that Gilead knew or should have known about the risk associated with their drugs but did not warn consumers. Instead, the company allegedly told doctors that they should “consider monitoring” patients with “a history of pathologic fracture or who are at risk of osteopenia.”

Christopher claims that the company attempted to secure higher profits from Truvada by withholding a safer drug from the market. Before Gilead developed Truvada, they had allegedly tested a similar drug with lower doses that would reduce toxicity in the kidneys and bones. However, this improved form would allegedly have undercut Truvada sales.

Christopher claims that instead of using their knowledge to help consumers and promote safety, Gilead allegedly decided to produce and promote a toxic product which was less beneficial but more profitable.

“Gilead was counting on Truvada—along with related parent drug Viread—to to grow its market share and continue to set it apart from the pack of pharmaceutical companies with similar offerings,” the Truvada lawsuit claims.

The Truvada lawsuit argues that, if Gilead had warned Christopher and his doctors about the risks associated with the drug, he would have been spared the years of bone and kidney toxicity he currently suffers from.

In his Truvada lawsuit, Christopher seeks past medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings, general damages, punitive damages, exemplary damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Truvada Lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-cv-00975-TAD-KLH in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.