Latest news with #Zantac
Time of India
2 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Popping acidity pills? The quick fix may have a hidden cost
Ranitidine, a once-trusted over-the-counter anti-acidity pill taken by millions, is under scrutiny after fears that it may contain a probable cancer-causing contaminant. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) has asked states to direct manufacturers to monitor NDMA levels in the drug. Durgesh Nandan Jha speaks to Dr Ashwini Kumar Setya, senior gastroenterologist at Medanta Hospital , to assess the risks Why has this pill become so controversial? Ranitidine belongs to a class of drugs called histamine-2 (H-2) blockers, which reduce but don't completely stop stomach acid production. Ranitidine is not carcinogenic on its own. The concern arises when the molecule breaks down over time or under certain conditions to form N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a nitrosamine linked to possible cancer risk. Since it's cheap and easily available, contamination could impact many. Sold under brand names like Zantac and Rantac, should we stop using Ranitidine? Should long-term users be concerned? We are yet to come across a medicine, including vitamins, which doesn't have side effects. No drug should be taken without medical supervision. Reports say the concentration of contaminants in Ranitidine is very small. But prolonged consumption and cumulative exposure could exceed safe limits. The Drugs Technical Advisory Board has suggested that drug makers reduce Ranitidine's shelf life to lower NDMA levels. Will that help? Ranitidine can degrade over time, especially when exposed to heat, humidity, and light, producing increased NDMA levels and potentially raising cancer risk. Reducing shelf life shortens the window in which NDMA can pile up, helping to keep it within safe limits. In 2020, the US FDA had raised similar concerns and ordered its withdrawal. Why is India still allowing manufacture and sale? CDSCO and the Drugs Controller General of India have been monitoring Ranitidine after the FDA and European Medicines Agency raised a red flag. An expert committee identified cancer risks, but there aren't any documented cases of cancer attributed to the drug in India. Pantoprazole (brand name Pan D) is another common anti-acidity pill. Any risks of misuse? Stomach acid serves three purposes — killing ingested germs, starting protein digestion, and activating pepsin for further protein breakdown. Drugs like Pantoprazole reduce stomach acid to nil, removing the first line of defence and raising chances of infections such as Hepatitis A and E, gastroenteritis, and typhoid. These drugs can also lead to bloating as the undigested food ferments in the gut, producing more gas. Which one's the safest acidity drug? And when to see a doctor instead of self-medicating? Short-term use of Ranitidine (up to two months) is not a likely cause for concern. But if considering long-term, talk to the doctor about switching to another H-2 blocker like Famotidine or a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) like Omeprazole. If you're using it just to relieve burning in the chest or upper abdomen, replace with a liquid antacid. Heartburn, acidity are now common due to sedentary lifestyle and poor diet. Any long-term effects of anti-acidity pills such as rebound acidity, peptic ulcers or even cancer? Since acid secretion becomes nil with Pantoprazole and other PPIs, the body responds by increasing the hormone gastrin, which makes glands that secrete acid proliferate. When you stop using the drug, those glands start secreting acid with a vengeance, causing rebound acidity. It's a vicious cycle that makes patients want to go back to the drug. One long-term effect of these pills is non-cancerous stomach polyps.
Yahoo
08-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why passive income investors should consider these 3 defensive stocks in 2025
As someone looking to build a long-term passive income, I tend to like defensive stocks that can deliver steady(ish) revenue and earnings even when consumer confidence takes a hit. Finding high-quality defensive shares can sometimes be challenging. There are plenty of companies in the FTSE 100 Index operating in non-cyclical sectors. However, investors usually have to pay more for the privilege of lower cyclical risk that comes from owning these. That said, I've picked out three big names that I think other passive income investors should be considering in 2025. GSK Pharma heavyweight GSK (LSE: GSK) has been a steady presence on my watchlist ever since the Haleon spin-off in 2025 gave it a sharper focus on medicines and vaccines. The half-year results for the period ended 30 June showed revenue growth across its key divisions, as the company pushes towards the upper end of its guidance range in FY26. Right now, the shares are offering a dividend yield of 4.5%, which is above average for the Footsie. Its price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is sitting at 16.8, suggesting to me the valuation isn't overly stretched compared to other big healthcare names. With a market cap north of £50bn, it's one of the index's true heavyweights and I think that scale could help it ride out bumps like trade tariffs better than smaller peers. That said, patent expiries and ligitation risks are always something to consider. For example, GSK is facing an ongoing class action following its Zantac settlement, while its HIV drug Dolutegravir patent is due to expire in 2029. These create some medium-term uncertainty. Unilever Unilever (LSE: ULVR) is an enormous global conglomerate whose brands, including Dove and Ben & Jerry's, feature heavily in my day-to-day life. I think its diversified portfolio across multiple end markets gives it strong defensive qualities despite being consumer-facing. Cost inflation has been a challenge, so I'll be watching margins to see if it can keep passing price rises onto customers. Economic weakness could also dent sales if consumers cut back. Still, Unilever has been a leader in its space for decades and proven adept at navigating challenges. The 3.4% dividend yield is solid if roughly in line with the broader Footsie. A P/E of 23 isn't cheap, but I see that as the premium investors pay for size, diversification, and steady payouts. British American Tobacco British American Tobacco (LSE: BATS) is, in my view, the Footsie's income behemoth. The yield — around 5.6% as I write on 8 August — is funded by substantial cash flows from traditional products, while its 'next-generation' portfolio is adding a bigger chunk to sales. A P/E ratio of 11.5 is below the Footsie average and my other two picks, which tells me the market is pricing in plenty of caution around the risks posed by regulation and long-term demand trends. With a £92bn market cap, its size adds to its defensive qualities, even in a tough industry. Final thoughts None of these are slam-dunk buys — nothing in investing is — but GSK, Unilever, and British American Tobacco have all caught my eye this year for blending decent yields with sectors that, in my opinion, tend to be steadier than most. While I'm not currently a shareholder, I think they could be worth a look for passive investors like me, particularly if the economy weakens and more cyclical stocks begin to underperform. The post Why passive income investors should consider these 3 defensive stocks in 2025 appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool The Motley Fool UK has recommended British American Tobacco P.l.c., GSK, and Unilever. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Reuters
10-07-2025
- Health
- Reuters
Delaware Supreme Court sides with Zantac drugmakers over evidence
July 10 (Reuters) - Delaware's highest court ruled on Thursday that nearly 75,000 patients suing four large drugmakers cannot introduce reports from several experts to support their claim that the heartburn drug Zantac caused them to develop cancer. In a 5-0 decision, the Delaware Supreme Court sided with the drugmakers GSK (GSK.L), opens new tab, Pfizer (PFE.N), opens new tab, Sanofi ( opens new tab and Boehringer Ingelheim. The case has been closely watched by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which have expressed fear that an adverse outcome could erode Delaware's reputation as a business safe haven by encouraging mass tort litigation. Justice Abigail LeGrow said the trial judge erred by adopting a legal standard that presumed expert testimony was admissible, and failed to require the plaintiffs' experts to use "reliable scientific methodology" to reach their conclusions. Zantac was approved by U.S. regulators in 1983, and within five years was the world's best-selling medicine. Lawsuits against the drug's manufacturers began piling up after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2020 asked that Zantac be pulled from the market. That reflected concern that ranitidine, which was marketed as Zantac, could degrade into the carcinogen NDMA over time or when exposed to heat.
Bloomberg
10-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Delaware Court Sides With Zantac Makers in Cancer Claims Suits
The Delaware Supreme Court rejected the legitimacy of expert testimony linking the heartburn drug Zantac to cancer, in a major win for the drug makers. In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the state's highest court agreed with the argument of companies including GSK Plc, Pfizer Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals that a trial judge overseeing 75,000 lawsuits erred in allowing the cases to proceed to trial.
Reuters
14-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Texas law firm can sell off 6,000 tort cases in bankruptcy deal to repay funders
May 14 (Reuters) - A bankrupt Texas law firm facing allegations it filed lawsuits on behalf of people it did not represent can sell off thousands of mass tort cases as part of a settlement it struck with a pair of litigation funders, according to court records. Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez in Houston on Wednesday approved the settlement between MMA Law Firm and litigation backers Equal Access Justice Fund and EAJF ESQ Fund in a deal that could allow MMA to sell more than 6,000 of its cases, filings show. The cases include claims in mass litigation over heartburn drug Zantac, weed killer Roundup, and cow's milk-based baby formula for premature infants. The settlement assigns 75% of the proceeds of those sales to the litigation funders, which say they are owed nearly $38 million from MMA. The remainder of the sale proceeds will go to the firm's other creditors. But the funds must receive at least $18 million from the sale, the settlement agreement said. Representatives for MMA and the funds did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Avi Moshenberg, an attorney representing the unsecured creditors in the bankruptcy, welcomed the judge's ruling and said the deal is 'an enormous step toward getting the creditors paid.' The deal resolves a bitter fight playing out in both Texas state court and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court between the Florida-based funds and the troubled law firm MMA, formerly known as McClenny Moseley & Associates. MMA, its founder Zach Moseley and its other attorneys drew scrutiny from several federal judges in Louisiana and prompted an investigation by the FBI after the firm filed thousands of lawsuits in Louisiana state and federal courts in 2022 against insurers on behalf of homeowners who suffered property damage from hurricanes Laura, Delta and Ida. The status of the FBI investigation is unclear. Representatives for the New Orleans FBI office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The judges held hearings in 2023 over allegations that MMA attorneys improperly solicited or paid for clients through a marketing company and a roofer, filed lawsuits on behalf of people it did not represent and mishandled checks for clients from settlements, according to court records. Attorneys from the firm have faced disciplinary proceedings in both state and federal court, court records show. Separately, law enforcement in Louisiana has also said they are investigating the firm. MMA, facing a lawsuit from the litigation funders in Texas state court, filed for bankruptcy in April 2024. As part of the settlement with the litigation funders, MMA and Zach Moseley will continue to work on some of the firm's cases, although Moseley will not receive a salary increase or bonus until the firm's debts to the funds have been paid, the filing said. The court filings did not address whether any of the 6,000 cases that the firm can sell off include those that were under investigation. In cases brought by attorneys for MMA as part of the bankruptcy filing, which include claims against rival law firms over fees in MMA hurricane damage cases the other firms took over, MMA is slated to keep the majority of the recoveries, according to the agreement.
