The Gilead Viread medication originally received regulatory approval in 2001. At that point in time, it was one of the first of a few HIV medicines based on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, also known as TDF.

According to Aidsinfo.org, TDF is a component that is effective at treating certain conditions but is not well absorbed by the patient’s body. This means that a relatively large dose is necessary to be effective within an HIV patient. The downside for anyone using a TDF drug like the Gilead Viread medication is that a large dose can cause problems with bone mass loss or kidney toxicity.

Several HIV patients now say that for years, Gilead has had another HIV medication known as tenofovir alafenamide or TAF. According to the LA Times, TAF posed a lower risk of significant side effects because it could be taken in smaller doses.

Investors in the company first learned in spring 2004, that clinical testing started 2 years prior to that point demonstrated significant benefits in comparison with TDF versions of the medicines. However, further development of HIV drugs based on the TAF concept was delayed by October 2004.

Lawsuits filed over Gilead Viread side effects say that Gilead withheld TAF from the market in an attempt to extend the market for TDF medicines since their initial patents would start expiring in 2009. The company is accused in the lawsuits of purposefully delaying TAF development in order to capitalize on their profits and revenue despite the significant risks of bone loss and kidney problems experienced by patients taking the drug.

Gilead finally received regulatory approval to sell a medicine based on TAF in 2015, but the medicine was only available in fixed dose combinations rather than as a standalone product. As the lawsuits state, at that time Gilead was requesting doctors to write prescriptions for their TAF based products, but were unable to prescribe standalone TAF in conjunction with HIV drugs that were manufactured by competitors of Gilead.

In May 2019, Chief Executive of Gilead Sciences Daniel O’Day testified in front of Congress that a revised version of one of their top selling HIV pills was a brand new medicine, but that the company did not know that it was safer than the TDF version during early stages of development. But plaintiffs claim the truth directly contradicts the statements made in front of Congress, arguing that Gilead did indeed know of the benefits of the safer version and chose not to develop it on purpose.

Patients taking these drugs expect that the medicines are as safe as possible and that if there are risks that those dangers will be disclosed in the medicine information packet. When patients don’t receive accurate information about the risk profile of a drug, it exposes them to dangers and medical conditions and removes the patient’s fair opportunity to decide whether or not the risks are worth it.

Patients who suspect that they might have suffered from kidney problems or bone loss because they took the Gilead Viread drug might want to reach out to Top Class Actions for assistance with finding a lawyer.