Oxbryta Lawsuit

Oxbryta (voxelotor) is a prescription medication used to treat individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). It introduced a novel approach by acting as a hemoglobin S polymerization inhibitor, aiming to prevent red blood cells from sickling by targeting the root cause of the disease. It is hard to understand how exciting a development this was for patients and their families when Oxbryta was first introduced.

Available in tablet or liquid form, Oxbryta did not have a generic equivalent. It was developed to reduce complications associated with SCD, a group of inherited red blood cell disorders passed down from a parent.

Oxbryta was granted FDA approval under the accelerated approval pathway in November 2019 for the treatment of SCD in adults and children ages 12 and older. In 2021, it was also approved for children ages 4 to 11. In 2022, GBT was acquired by Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies.

It’s hard, as many of you know first-hand, how exciting this development was for patients and their families when Oxbryta was first introduced. It was marketed as a “first-of-its-kind” treatment that would address sickling directly by altering hemoglobin. Targeted toward patients aged four and up, it was expected to offer significant quality-of-life improvements and potentially prevent the painful episodes (vaso-occlusive crises or VOCs) common in sickle cell disease. The company really pumped up these benefits. The selling point was that Oxbryta could potentially transform sickle cell disease management by reducing complications like blood clots and organ damage.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hereditary blood disorder that affects the hemoglobin within red blood cells. Hemoglobin is a protein responsible for carrying oxygen throughout the body. In individuals with SCD, the hemoglobin is abnormal—called hemoglobin S—leading to red blood cells becoming rigid, sticky, and shaped like a crescent or “sickle” instead of the usual round, flexible shape. These sickle-shaped cells have trouble moving through blood vessels, which can cause blockages and reduce the flow of oxygen to various organs and tissues.

The clinical consequences are serious: VOCs, life-threatening infections, strokes, chronic anemia, and progressive organ damage (including spleen, liver, and kidney injury). Acute chest syndrome is another common and dangerous complication, producing shortness of breath, chest pain, and fever. Standard care has mainly involved symptom control—pain management, blood transfusions, and drugs like hydroxycarbamide—while newer avenues such as gene-modifying therapies are still evolving. For most people with SCD, treatment focuses on managing complications and improving quality of life rather than providing a complete cure.

Oxbryta’s active ingredient, voxelotor, binds to hemoglobin with the aim of stabilizing its structure and preventing the polymer formation that causes sickling. By improving red blood cell deformability and lowering blood viscosity, the drug was expected to improve circulation and reduce complications tied to blocked capillaries. Physicians sometimes prescribed Oxbryta alongside hydroxycarbamide as part of a combined strategy to decrease painful episodes and the need for transfusions.

The substance was advertised as an innovation that addressed sickling at its biological source, an appealing proposition for patients exhausted by decades of limited options. That promise, and the emotional relief it produced for families, is central to the grievances now driving litigation.

Oxbryta received clearance through the FDA’s accelerated approval mechanism based largely on intermediate clinical endpoints measured in the GBT-HOPE trial. Accelerated approval permits earlier access to therapies that address serious diseases but relies on follow-up studies to confirm longer-term benefit and safety. In 2021, results from pediatric studies such as HOPE-KIDS supported label expansion for younger patients.

But accelerated access has a cost: some longer-term safety signals may not be fully known at initial approval. Critics argue that the urgency of bringing novel SCD treatments to market—while understandable—can obscure significant unknowns about rare or delayed adverse outcomes.

After Oxbryta reached the market, a series of troubling findings from post-approval data and clinical trials raised alarms about its safety profile. These issues have fed lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny.

Notable trial findings and regulatory actions include:

• GBT440-032 (stroke-risk study in children): Trial data reportedly showed more deaths in the voxelotor arm compared with placebo, prompting questions about whether the drug altered risk in vulnerable pediatric patients.

• GBT440-042 (leg ulcer trial): Investigators observed unexpected fatalities in the study population, increasing concern about severe adverse events.

• European review: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) reviewed available evidence and identified higher mortality trends, ultimately leading to more restrictive actions in Europe. (See the EMA referral and assessment pages for background.)

• Litigation claims: Plaintiffs assert that internal company analyses and post-market signals—concerning rates of VOCs, strokes, and deaths—were either downplayed or not timely disclosed to regulators, prescribers, and patients.

Taken together, these data points, along with real-world patient reports, formed the basis for regulators and the public to question whether the initial safety narrative matched observed outcomes.

In September 2024, Pfizer announced a voluntary worldwide recall of all Oxbryta lots and paused distribution and clinical trials amid reports of an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events. European regulators had already flagged serious concerns, and the recall triggered suspension of approvals and heightened media coverage.

The recall was a dramatic reversal for a product that had been extensively promoted and relied upon by some patients. The swift withdrawal added fuel to claims that important safety signals had not been fully appreciated or communicated.

The Oxbryta recall has led to numerous product liability claims against Pfizer and its predecessor company. Early-filed complaints accuse the manufacturers of concealing critical safety information, failing to warn adequately, and marketing the product with misleading assurances about benefit and risk.

Common legal theories in Oxbryta cases include:

• Failure to warn and inadequate labeling
• Negligence in design, testing, or post-market surveillance
• Strict liability for a defective product
• Misleading or deceptive marketing practices under consumer protection statutes

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are pursuing discovery into internal documents, clinical trial data, and promotional materials to build a record that the companies knew, or should have known, about an elevated risk profile.

At Tort Advisor, our intake team is looking for individuals nationwide who meet certain basic criteria for an Oxbryta claim:

• You took Oxbryta for at least two months.
• After starting the medication, you experienced one or more of the following: a vaso-occlusive crisis requiring treatment, organ damage, a stroke, or death of a loved one.

If you believe you meet these conditions, contact our office for a confidential review.

It is likely that, as claims increase, courts may consider centralizing pretrial proceedings through a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to coordinate discovery and motion practice. An MDL can streamline complex discovery (including internal safety analyses and marketing records) and facilitate bellwether trials to gauge case strengths before settlement negotiations.

That said, MDL consolidation is not guaranteed. Judges weigh factors such as the number of filed claims, commonality of issues, and case management efficiency. If an MDL is formed, it may lengthen pretrial timelines but also increase leverage for plaintiffs by revealing systemic information.

It is early to predict precise settlement values, but using experience from analogous pharmaceutical litigation, Tort Advisor’s attorneys estimate potential compensation ranges that depend on injury severity and case facts.

Factors shaping recovery include age, earning loss, permanence of injury, medical expenses, and the strength of evidence tying the injury to Oxbryta exposure.

While complex pharmaceutical matters can span years, early settlement incentives—especially following a product recall—can shorten timelines. Conversely, MDL coordination and bellwether testing can extend the pretrial period. Tort Advisor will pursue a strategy that balances timely relief with the need to develop a strong evidentiary record.

While complex pharmaceutical matters can span years, early settlement incentives—especially following a product recall—can shorten timelines. Conversely, MDL coordination and bellwether testing can extend the pretrial period. Tort Advisor will pursue a strategy that balances timely relief with the need to develop a strong evidentiary record.

If you or someone close to you took Oxbryta and suffered serious harm, you deserve answers and potential compensation. Tort Advisor is accepting Oxbryta cases nationwide. Call us or visit fill out the form to start a free case evaluation.