Merck wins New Jersey court case over Vioxx
Pharmaceutical giant Merck hopes its recent win in a US defence case against its painkiller Vioxx, will form an important step in getting the drug back on the market. The drugmaker pulled the $2.5 billion-a-year drug in September 2004 after data showed that long-term use doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Pharmaceutical giant Merck hopes its recent win in a US defence case against its painkiller Vioxx, will form an important step in getting the drug back on the market. The drugmaker pulled the $2.5 billion-a-year drug in September 2004 after data showed that long-term use doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
It has won a court case in which Frederick Humeston, from Boise, Idaho, alleged that he suffered a heart attack at the age of 56, as a result of intermittent use of Vioxx over a two-month period.
The nine-member jury decided the drugmaker provided adequate warning to doctors about health risks associated with its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx and did not commit consumer fraud in marketing the drug. It also found that Merck did not misrepresent, suppress or conceal information about increased risks of heart attack and stroke from the pain and arthritis medicine.
The Merck defence lawyers argued that due to the stress Humeston was under at work, he would have suffered a heart attack, whether he was taking the drug or not. Merck also presented evidence of its Vioxx studies before and after FDA approval, which it said were made available to the FDA and the medical community at the time.
'Merck is satisfied with the jury verdict,' said Kenneth Frazier, senior vice-president and general counsel of Merck.
The drug company, however, faces thousands of lawsuits from former Vioxx users who claim to have been harmed by the drug. 'There will be other Vioxx trials and we will vigorously defend them one by one over the coming years,' said Frazier.
The company was found liable in the first Vioxx case to go to trial, in Texas last August, and was ordered pay damages of $253m to the widow of a 59-year-old Vioxx user. Merck is appealing that decision.
The New Jersey case, however, involved a person who only used Vioxx for a short amount of time and intermittently. Humeston had only taken the drug for about two months for knee pain, while the study that led to the Vioxx withdrawal last year found increased heart risk only after 18 months of continuous use.
The first federal Vioxx case is scheduled to go to trial on November 28.