Avandia
Avandia (rosiglitazone) was centralized into a single MDL in October 2007 after regulators and independent researchers raised concerns that the diabetes medication was associated with an increased risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular events, prompting thousands of plaintiffs to bring failure-to-warn and design-defect claims against the manufacturer. The docket moved through a large early settlement program roughly a decade ago that resolved the substantial majority of filed claims, and the pending count has been low for years since.
With only two actions currently pending, duration and resolution risk in this docket is now a function of case-specific posture rather than docket-wide dynamics. There is no bellwether sequence left to run and no general-causation fight still open at the docket level — those questions were substantially resolved (through settlement, not trial verdict) years ago. What actually determines how these last matters resolve is why each one remains unresolved: a late diagnosis, a plaintiff who opted out of an earlier settlement structure, or a procedural issue specific to that filing. Each of those postures carries a different resolution path, from renewed settlement negotiation to individual trial preparation.
This is a instructive example of how Criterica Intelligence frames regulated outcomes intelligence for a docket in its terminal phase: the meaningful signal is not a docket-wide probability, since the docket-wide question has already been answered by the market's prior settlement behavior. The signal that matters is understanding the structural reason a specific case sits outside that resolved population, and what that implies about how it is likely to be litigated to a conclusion from here.
Criterica Intelligence's platform is built to make that kind of phase-specific structural read available across every active MDL, including the quieter, late-stage dockets like this one that no longer generate headlines but still carry real resolution-path questions for any case still open.
It consolidated claims that rosiglitazone, a diabetes drug, was linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular events, and that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn prescribers and patients of that risk.
The overwhelming majority of filed claims were resolved through a settlement program roughly a decade ago; a docket at this stage typically retains only claims that fell outside that resolution, such as late-diagnosed or opt-out cases.
No. The general-causation and bellwether-stage questions that shape an active mass tort were effectively resolved through the earlier settlement wave, so there is no ongoing bellwether sequence left to track here.
Without an active settlement program or bellwether calendar, an unresolved case proceeds on an individual litigation track — through remaining pretrial motions toward either a negotiated resolution or an individual trial.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.