Vioxx Pharmaceutical Lawsuits

US Supreme Court to consider allowing shareholder lawsuits over failure of Vioxx painkiller

2009-05-26T11:44:00.000-07:00

From the AP:

US Supreme Court to consider allowing shareholder lawsuits over failure of Vioxx painkiller

Linda A. Johnson, AP Business Writer

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether shareholders can sue Merck & Co. over whether the drugmaker provided adequate information about the risks of its former blockbuster painkiller Vioxx before it was pulled from the market.

The high court agreed Tuesday to review Merck's challenge to a federal appeals court's reinstatement of a class-action securities lawsuit.

Investors had accused Merck of providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. A U.S. district judge dismissed the November 2003 lawsuit on grounds of a statute of limitations.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to allow the lawsuits and Merck appealed to the Supreme Court.

Vioxx was pulled from the market on Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled risks of heart attack, stroke and death.

In a statement, Merck said the company is pleased the Supreme Court agreed to hear its appeal and to resolve the split among the circuit courts in their rulings on what constitutes proper notice to investors under securities laws.

"We believe that the District Court in this case correctly held that the intense public discussion of data surrounding Vioxx" had put investors on notice of the relevant issues long before Merck announced new scientific information and voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market, the statement said.

"The evidence shows that Merck properly informed the (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and the scientific community about scientific data as it emerged," Merck wrote.

After it pulled Vioxx from the market, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck was hit with a deluge of lawsuits from shareholders, patients and their survivors claiming Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes, and from insurance plans seeking reimbursement for their costs for covering Vioxx prescriptions.

Merck is currently making payments to patients and survivors under a $4.85 billion settlement that ends lawsuits on behalf of roughly 50,000 patients who claimed Vioxx harmed them.

Lawyers for the shareholders did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Vioxx Lawsuit

2008-06-16T15:12:00.001-07:00

From legalnewsline.com....

Unions sue over Vioxx settlement
by Chris Rizo
NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) - Two of the nation's most powerful unions have sued six law firms for their handling of litigation against Vioxx maker Merck & Co. Inc.

The Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters Union filed the federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Vioxx was taken off the market in September 2004, after the once-popular pain medication was found to increase the risk of stroke and heart attack.

The unions claim the Nov. 2007 settlement of the liability class action suit, in which Merck was held harmless, failed to provide money for reimbursements to lien rights of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) health plans.

ERISA, enacted in 1974, aimes to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries by requiring the disclosure to them of financial and other information concerning the plan.

The complaint says that the $4.85 billion that Merck has agreed to place in a settlement account to pay claimants who say they were harmed by Vioxx will be distributed by a secret formula that violates the ERISA provisions.

If the court does not grant an injunction, the unions' lawsuit says the plaintiffs will be "irreparably harmed."

Defendants in the case are: BrownGreer PLC; Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles PC; Blizzard, McCarthy & Nabers LLP; Girardi and Keese; Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar LLP; and Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.

The lawsuit was filed last week on behalf of the unions by the New Orleans, La., law firm of King, Krebs & Jurgens.

Study Links Certain Painkillers to High Cholesterol Levels

2007-02-15T14:47:00.000-08:00

Study Links Certain Painkillers to High Cholesterol Levels
Date Published: Tuesday, February 13th, 2007

A new study published last month in the journal Arthritis Research & Therapy sheds new light on why the class of painkillers known as COX-2 inhibitors may lead to an increased incidence of heart attacks. Researchers at Winthrop-University Hospital in Long Island have determined that controversial drugs such as Vioxx and Bextra may impede the body’s ability to purge excess cholesterol.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study that describes the effects of COX inhibition on reverse cholesterol transport proteins,” the authors wrote. “Our results suggest that the cardiovascular hazard observed with COX inhibitors may result not only from enhanced platelet aggregation [blood clots], but also from interference with cholesterol outflow.”

Drugs such as Vioxx and Bextra were commonly prescribed in the treatment of arthritis pain before they were each removed from the market by the FDA due to safety concerns. The new research suggests that these medications block the patient’s ability to process lipid loads, allowing cholesterol to build up. To this point, researchers have focused on the risk of blood clotting as the leading cause of cardiovascular problems in these patients. “Increased cardiovascular risk with COX inhibition may be ascribed at least in part to altered cholesterol metabolism,” they claim.

“Selective COX-2 inhibitors reduce pain, stiffness, and inflammation with efficacy equivalent to non-selective NSAIDs, but with reduced gastrotoxicity,” the researchers note. “Unfortunately, adverse effects on coronary heart disease risk with prolonged use of COX-2s may offset any gastrointestinal benefit.”

Vioxx whistle-blower weighs in on demoted antibiotic Ketek

2007-02-15T14:43:00.000-08:00

By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY
More than two years after David Graham told a Senate panel that the Food and Drug Administration was "incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx," the FDA scientist was back on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to tell a House panel that "nothing has really changed."
The nearly five-hour hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was only the first in what chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., says will be a series to "evaluate the Food and Drug Administration's ability to safely approve new drugs and provide post-marketing surveillance."

No FDA or drug company representatives were asked to speak at Tuesday's hearing, a decision that drew criticism from some committee members. "I'm disappointed that neither the FDA nor the manufacturer of Ketek … were invited to tell their side," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, who is a physician. "We must be cautious not to come to conclusions today."

Much of the testimony centered on the antibiotic Ketek, which has been linked to liver failure and other adverse side effects.

On Monday, the FDA announced that Ketek was no longer approved to treat sinusitis or bronchitis, because its potential risks outweigh any benefits for these fairly benign conditions. Ketek, approved in April 2004, remains on the market only to treat pneumonia acquired outside a hospital or nursing home.

"FDA approved Ketek, despite knowing that it could kill people from liver damage and that tens of millions of people would be exposed to it," physician David Ross, who had worked on the pre-approval side of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) for a decade, told the panel. Ross said his superiors forced him to soften his unflattering review of the drug.

Lisa Kennedy, of Ketek maker Sanofi Aventis, told USA TODAY that Ketek can't be compared with Vioxx, the blockbuster arthritis drug pulled off the market in September 2004, because an FDA advisory panel in December supported the antibiotic's continued use for pneumonia.

Graham told panel members that CDER "regards industry as the agency's main client." Asked if he had concerns about other drugs, Graham said off-label use of atypical anti-psychotic medications to sedate nursing home residents kills roughly 15,000 people a year.

He also cited Zyprexa, used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, because, he said, maker Eli Lilly has known for years that the drug causes weight gain that leads to diabetes.

Lilly said in a statement that ever since Zyprexa was approved in 1996, its label has noted that weight gain and diabetes were observed in clinical trials.

Panel members asked Graham to submit the names of other potentially dangerous drugs. In an interview afterward, Graham declined to name the drugs before alerting the panel. He said he plans to submit his list next week after canvassing his colleagues to see if any drugs are "bugging" them.

Doctors warned: take care with freebies

2007-02-12T15:57:00.001-08:00

February 13, 2007 - 9:49AM

Samples of prescription drugs given out as freebies by doctors are often used incorrectly by patients confused by poor labelling, an independent review has found.

The review's report has cautioned that the "starter packs" of new medications handed out by pharmaceutical marketers can be responsible for delays in vital treatment.

It outlines a series of complaints of "medicine misadventure" made to the adverse medicines events hot line over a two-year period.

"The most commonly reported problems were drug samples being supplied to patients with inadequate information regarding dosage, administration, storage and possible adverse effects," the report, published in the industry bulletin Australian Prescriber, says.

"In addition, some patients were given excessive quantities of a drug."

In one of 13 cases outlined, a 50-year-old woman took home an unlabelled sample of the anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel, prescribed for schizophrenia, believing it was pain relief to be taken "as required".

A 32-year-old women was given samples of the same drug, another antidepressant Fluoxetine and the anti-anxiety drug Rivotril and took all three at once.

"Patient took the drugs for three weeks concurrently before questioning how best to take them and what the potential adverse effects were," the report states.

A 28-year-old male patient was given four starter packs of the anti-depressant Luvox to "take the edge off" but he didn't take the drugs because he had inadequate product information.

At least two complaints related to the controversial anti-arthritis drug Vioxx, which was withdrawn worldwide in 2004, after it was linked to increased risk of heart problems.

Drug samples were not regulated at the time the complaints were laid, but a Medicines Australia spokeswoman said a new code of practice had been introduced in December.

"Starter packs supplied from then should include that information," she said.

Drug samples are big business, with US statistics showing manufacturers spent $US10.5 billion ($A13.55 billion) on the marketing strategy in 2001.

© 2007 AAP

Merck Pharmaceutical Drug War Comes to Heartland -- First Vioxx Trial in Midwest Announced

2007-02-12T15:51:00.001-08:00

The upcoming wrongful death lawsuit, Schwaller vs. Merck & Co, will be the first Vioxx case to be tried in the Illinois Circuit Court in Madison County and the first anywhere in the Midwest. It is possible that this case will set the tone for how Merck will handle cases in the future.

St. Louis, MO (PRWeb) February 12, 2007 -- The legal war between drug manufacturers and people who use the drugs has now moved into the heartland of America. The law firm of Brown & Crouppen www.BrownandCrouppen.com along with lawyers from the Watts Law Firm www.Wattslawfirm.com and Beasley Allen www.BeasleyAllen.com will begin the first Vioxx case to be tried in the Midwest beginning Tuesday, February 20th. . Until now most Vioxx cases filed against the giant drug maker Merck & Co. have been tried on the east and west coasts and New Orleans.

The Role of Litigation in Defining Drug Risks
"This is the first time that this war has been fought in the heart of America and it's possible that this case will set the tone for how Merck will handle cases in the future," said Andy Crouppen, attorney for Brown & Crouppen, the law firm representing the case of Schwaller vs. Merck & Co.

The upcoming wrongful death lawsuit, Schwaller vs. Merck & Co, Madison County ILL Case No. 05-L-687,will be the first Vioxx case to be tried in the Illinois Circuit Court in Madison County and the first anywhere in the Midwest. Brown & Crouppen has a long history in standing up for the consumer in drug litigation.

The case of Patricia Schwaller, a 52-year-old mother of two adult children, who died suddenly of a heart attack on August 8, 2003, will be tried by a trial team assembled by Brown and Crouppen consisting of Mikal Watts of The Watts Law Firm, Andy Birchfield of Beasley Allen and John Driscoll of Brown & Crouppen. She had been taking the drug Vioxx for just over 20 months. Schwaller was a long-time resident of Granite City, Ill in Madison County. Frank Schwaller, her spouse, is the plaintiff.

Merck, the number four (4) U.S. drug maker, withdrew Vioxx in 2004 when a study showed it raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck faces a reported 27,000 Vioxx lawsuits. So far Merck & Co. has gone to court with 13 plaintiffs.

"One must understand the importance of this type of litigation," said Crouppen, attorney for Brown & Crouppen. "The money awarded to the plaintiff might be a better 'headline,' but it is secondary to the thousands of lives it saves a year by ensuring that dangerous drugs are detected and either labeled or pulled."

A report by the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) January 17, 2007 titled "The Role of Litigation in Defining Drug Risks" seems to support this statement. A summary statement says "…limiting legal involvement in the prescription drug arena is likely to increase the nation's problem of poorly defined or inadequately presented drug risk information. These case studies indicate that clinical trials and routine regulatory oversight as currently practiced often fail to uncover important adverse effects for widely marketed products. In each instance, the litigation process revealed new data on the incidence of adverse events, enabled reassessments of drug risks through better evaluation of data, and influenced corporate and regulatory behavior. In performing these tasks, lawyers and their clients often find themselves serving as the drug safety researchers of last resort."

A love story-that has died- Patricia Schwaller graduated from Granite City High School in June 1969 and married Frank, her high school sweetheart, that same year. After discharge from the service, Frank often worked the night shift. Patricia would stay up to wake Frank in time for work and make his lunch - Patricia lovingly put mustard "hearts" on his sandwiches. During the last year or so of Patricia's life, her interests included her family, going to the theater with friends, relaxing in the pool, and enjoying a comfortable life-style with Frank. They had two children, Melissa and Jonathon, now grown. Frank has never recovered from Patricia's sudden death and the loss of the times they shared. He does not know what to do with his life. Patricia will be missed by many.

Other Vioxx lawsuits have alleged that Merck & Co. failed to heed warning signs about the cardiovascular risks of its painkiller before rushing it to market, alleging the drug maker failed to warn doctors and patients of the medicines harmful effects. Also, alleging that the popular pain-relieving drug Vioxx caused heart attacks.

Brown and Crouppen has a successful track record in Madison County, with a 19 million dollar verdict in a trial just two years ago. For more information about the firm and for daily updates on the progress of Schwaller vs. Merck & Co, please visit www.brownandcrouppen.com.

Merck Pharmaceutical Drug War Comes to Heartland -- First Vioxx Trial in Midwest Announced

2007-02-12T15:51:00.000-08:00

Federal Court Tosses Vioxx Suit

2007-02-10T16:19:00.000-08:00

THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
19 South LaSalle Street #903
Chicago, IL 60603
phone 312/377-4000 · fax 312/377-5000
http://www.heartland.org

Federal Court Tosses Vioxx Suit

Author: John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D.
Published by: The Heartland Institute
Published in: Health Care News
Publication date: February 2007

On November 22, a federal judge refused to certify a national class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of plaintiffs from various states. The suit claimed the plaintiffs had been injured by the arthritis drug Vioxx, manufactured by Merck.

Judge Eldon Fallon of the U.S. District Court in New Orleans instructed the plaintiffs to file lawsuits in their various home states, refusing in his 26-page ruling their request to try all the cases in one class action under New Jersey law. Merck is headquartered in New Jersey.

Critics say class-action lawsuits are a strategy of intimidation and extortion, and a way to shop for a favorable forum. Federal courts have become increasingly strict in applying class-action criteria, requiring plaintiffs to have a predominant, common claim and pattern of injury.

Unique Claims

In his ruling, Fallon pointed out that each individual's claim is unique. Therefore, he noted, one court would be forced to try thousands of cases where injuries, damages, and claims of negligence or liability would hinge on individual issues of fact.

"[E]ven if New Jersey law could be applied to the entire class," Fallon wrote, "individualized factual issues concerning specific causation and damages dominate this litigation and create independent hurdles to certification."

Though Fallon said he did not doubt there were common issues, it did not change the fact that claims would be unique depending on the damage suffered and how that damage related to the allegations of failure to warn, and whether the risks known by the defendant and the prescribing physician pertained to the damages suffered.

Slight Risk

The Vioxx claims arose from a long-term study showing the drug suppressed colon polyps but slightly increased the study subjects' risk of suffering heart attacks and other cardiovascular events.

The slight increase of cardiovascular problems identified in the research caused public anxiety, and Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004. Merck is now facing more than 27,000 claims of injury from former Vioxx users.

Vioxx was found to be a beneficial drug for arthritis eight years ago, causing less intestinal irritation and bleeding than other drugs of its type. Millions of patients used Vioxx continuously or intermittently for their arthritis.

In 2003, Vioxx generated $2.5 billion in revenue for the company--11 percent of its $22.49 billion in annual revenue at that time.

Rational Decisions

Gil Ross, M.D., medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and Health--a public health advocacy group based in New York City--has been watching the Vioxx case closely.

Though he declined comment on its legal subtleties, Ross pointed out, "since the news of the drug's cardiovascular risks broke, other studies have shown increased cardiovascular risk for the entire Cox-1 class of drugs" marketed under the trade names Motrin, Naproxen, and Aleve, to name just a few.

"Are the lawyers going to go after those drugs on the same theory applied to Vioxx litigation?" Ross asked.

Ross added that he supports Pfizer's decision not to withdraw Celebrex--a similar, popular drug that has the same cardiovascular risks as those associated with Vioxx. Ross pointed out every drug, and most therapies, have risks and benefits.

"The Vioxx story is unfortunate," Ross said, "because it sacrificed rational medical decision-making to a litigation agenda and created public panic."

Dr. John Dale Dunn (jddmdjd@web-access.net), an inactive attorney, teaches emergency medicine at Fort Hood, Texas and is a member of the Science and Policy Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health.

For more information ...

Judge Eldon Fallon's decision for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, In Re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, issued November 22, 2006, is available through PolicyBot™, The Heartland Institute's free online research database. Point your Web browser to http://www.policybot.org and search for document #20367.

Vioxx set to take center stage in Madison County

2007-02-10T16:18:00.000-08:00

Vioxx set to take center stage in Madison County

Thursday, February 08, 2007

By Steve Gonzalez

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel J. Stack

Attorney John Driscoll

Attorney Dan Ball
Plaintiff's attorney John Driscoll of Brown & Crouppen will try to convince a jury that Vioxx caused or significantly contributed to the death of Frank Schwaller's wife in Madison County's first trial against Merck over the recalled arthritis pain reliever.

The high stakes trial, likely to capture national attention, will last at least six weeks. The court's most experienced handler of complex litigation Circuit Judge Daniel Stack will preside over the dramatic stage, set to open Feb. 20.

Jurors will report to the courthouse that day and will have a week to fill out jury questioners. They will return Feb. 26, when voir dire -- juror interviews -- begins.

Vioxx was pulled from the market in September 2004 because studies indicated it could contribute to heart ailments. Since then it has been targeted in thousands of lawsuits across the country.

While the pharmaceutical is under siege in court, a recent study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute offered moral support for Merck by reporting that an overwhelming majority of orthopedic surgeons surveyed believe Vioxx should still be on the market. (See related story).

Vioxx is the brand name of rofecoxib, one of a class of drugs called prostaglandins which work to reduce inflammation and pain by providing analgesic and anti-inflammatory benefits to people who suffer from arthritis and muscle pain.

Vioxx was introduced in the United States in 1999. Vioxx is a Cyclo-Oxygenase-2 (cox2) inhibitor and was used to treat arthritis and is in the class of drugs called NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory). Other NSAID drugs include Ibuprofen, Celebrex and Aleve.

In the upcoming Madison County trial, Schwaller claims Merck failed to effectively warn users and doctors that numerous other methods of pain relievers, including Ibuprofen, Naproxen and Mobic were safer.

He claims Vioxx was defectively designed, inadequately tested, dangerous to human health, and lacked proper warnings, which subjected users to risks of heart attacks, strokes and other illnesses.

Schwaller is seeking at least $250,000 for Merck's alleged violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, product liability, negligent design and negligent failure to warn.

He claims his wife was unaware of the "dangerous propensities" of the product until well after her use and medical conditions requiring hospitalization.

Schwaller also claims that Merck did not accurately reflect the symptoms, type, scope, or severity of the side effects and also claims Merck failed to perform adequate testing prior to marketing Vioxx.

"Merck also failed to act properly on adverse reports it received about Vioxx, and failed to properly study pre-market as well as post-market studies," Schwaller's complaint notes.

Trial outcomes have so far produced mixed results.

On Aug. 19, 2005, a jury awarded Texas widow $253.4 million in damages in the first Vioxx trial.

In November 2005, Merck won the second case that went to trial in New Jersey. The jury ruled that Merck had adequately warned doctors and patients of the drug's risk.

In January 2006, a Texas jury awarded a 71-year-old smoker with heart disease $7 million compensatory and $25 million punitive damages. The plaintiff in that case had a fatal heart attack three weeks after finishing a one-week sample of Vioxx.

In a federal trial in February 2006, a jury found Merck not liable after the case was first tried in a Houston court, but resulted in a hung jury.

Merck has reserved $970 million to pay for its Vioxx-related legal expenses through the end of this year.

They will be represented by Dan Ball, Dan Nester and Stephen Strauss of Bryan Cave in St. Louis.

George Tsougarakis of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed in New York will also represent Merck.

Driscoll will have help from Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., and Patricia Leigh O'Dell of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala.

U.S. jury awards millions in Vioxx lawsuit

2005-09-02T18:33:00.000-07:00

U.S. jury awards millions in Vioxx lawsuit

By LEONARD ZEHR

Saturday, August 20, 2005 Updated at 2:03 AM EDTKey

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Drug giant Merck & Co. Inc. has suffered a severe setback in the first of thousands of lawsuits in the United States and Canada as a Texas jury awarded more than $253-million (U.S.) to the family of a man who died after taking the company's Vioxx painkiller.

In a groundbreaking decision, the seven-man, five-woman jury found Merck liable in the death of 59-year-old Robert Ernst. They rejected Merck's argument that Mr. Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia, or irregular heart beat.

Merck yanked Vioxx, a $2.5-billion a year blockbuster, from markets worldwide in the fall of 2004, after a long-term study showed it could double the risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or longer.

“This loss means that this particular jury believed the plaintiff's story about the company's wrongful conduct, which we believe will carry into the future,” said Windsor, Ont. lawyer Greg Monforton, whose firm has some 200 Vioxx clients across Canada.

Advertisements
click here

“The verdict against Merck is very encouraging news for all Canadians who have suffered heart attacks or strokes while taking Vioxx,” he added.

Some four dozen claims have been filed in Canada against Merck by a consortium of law firms. The cases, however, have not yet been consolidated into a single class action. Mr. Monforton said his clients may proceed individually or join a class action.

Merck put a great deal of energy into its defence in Texas on the grounds that a victory would have discouraged lawsuits in the future. “However, the net result is the opposite,” Mr. Monforton said. “Now that we have a jury verdict, it will embolden a lot of individuals to come forward with their claims.”

That prospect prompted investors to dump shares of Merck on the New York Stock Exchange yesterday. The stock price sank $1.16, or 4 per cent, to $29.25.

Robert's widow, Carol Ernst, began to cry when the verdict was read while her attorneys jumped up and shouted, “Amen!”

Mr. Ernst was a produce manager at Wal-Mart and a marathon runner who died in May, 2001 after taking Vioxx for eight months to alleviate pain in his hands. The couple had been married for less than a year.

Merck has vowed to fight each case individually, claiming that adverse cardiac events were caused by a patient's pre-existing condition and not by Vioxx. It said it plans to appeal the Texas ruling.

“There is no reliable scientific evidence that shows Vioxx causes cardiac arrhythmias, which an autopsy showed was the cause of Mr. Ernst's death, along with coronary atherosclerosis,” said Jonathan Skidmore, a member of Merck's defence team.

The jury award consisted of $24.4-million in actual damages and $229-million in punitive damages.

“This case did not call for punitive damages,” Mr. Skidmore said. “Merck acted responsibly and in the best interest of patients, from researching Vioxx prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost 10,000 patients, to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market, and to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when it did.”

Legal experts suggest the jury award was excessive and will probably be reduced on appeal. They said Texas law caps punitive damages to twice actual damages. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled punitive damages should usually be limited to nine times actual damages.

Vioxx was used by more than 20 million people. It and Pfizer Inc.'s Celebrex commanded the lion's share of the pain reliever market in the past five years. Pfizer has rejected studies linking high doses of Celebrex with an increased risk of stroke or coronary disease.

Legal experts said the Texas decision is especially damaging because Merck initially had been expected to win what was considered a weak case linking Vioxx to arrhythmia. And the next two cases Merck faces appear somewhat stronger, they say. A trial begins next month in Atlantic City, N.J., over a former U.S. Marine's claims that Vioxx caused his heart attack.

In November, the first of 1,800 federal cases will be heard in New Orleans. It revolves around Richard Irvin, a Florida man who was taking Vioxx for a month before his 2001 death from a blood clot in his heart. Scientists have speculated that Vioxx causes cardiovascular problems because it blocks a substance that keeps blood from clotting.

With a report from Associated Press

Moran sets trial date in Vioxx, but Walgreens wants out

2005-09-02T18:21:00.001-07:00

Moran sets trial date in Vioxx, but Walgreens wants out

Thursday, September 01, 2005

By Steve Gonzalez - Edwardsville Bureau

Circuit Judge George Moran
While it doesn't appear that a Vioxx trial will get under way any time soon in Madison County, a frequent Merck co-defendant, Walgreens, is asking Circuit Court Judge George Moran to be dismissed from a suit scheduled for trial in 2007.

Dick Donohoo of East Alton filed an 11-count suit Feb. 4, claiming his use of the arthritis pain reliever Vioxx caused him to suffer heart damage. Merck pulled the drug from the market almost a year ago and ever since, the pharmaceutical has been the target of thousands of lawsuits across the country.

In the nation's first Vioxx trial, a Texas jury recently awarded more than $250 million to a consumer's widow, but the whopping judgment was whittled down because of the state's cap on damages law.

According to Donohoo's suit, he claims he suffered a heart attack and stroke at age 67.

"His heart attack and stroke were caused or significantly contributed to be caused by Vioxx." He states the Vioxx was purchased from a Madison County Walgreen's.

Walgreens, according to Donohoo, was negligent because it sold a defective product and was in breach of warranty.

In its April 15 motion to dismiss, which will finally be heard Sept. 8, Walgreens claims Donohoo does not allege when Vioxx was sold to him, when he ingested the medication, or where he suffered his heart attack or strokes.

“Donohoo’s complaint fails to allege the date which he last received a prescription for Vioxx, however, based on the natural inferences of his allegations, Donohoo’s claim for breach of warranty is barred as he does not allege the Vioxx in question was purchased within two years of the alleged injuries,” the motion states.

Walgreens also claims that both state and federal courts in Illinois have held that pharmacists and pharmacies are not strictly liable under product liability theories of failure to warn or the “unreasonably dangerous” condition of prescription medication, if the medicine in question is dispensed as ordered by the prescribing physician.

“Donohoo does not allege that Walgreens filled the Vioxx prescriptions in question in any other way other than was ordered by the prescribing physician.”

Walgreens also claims that Donohoo fails to state a proper claim for breach of express warranty because he does not allege that the medication was not effective in treating the medical condition for which it was purchased.

Walgreens is represented by John Cunningham of Brown & James of Belleville.

Donohoo is represented by Jeffrey Lowe of St. Louis, Joseph Danis of St. Louis, Evan Buxner of Walther Glenn in St. Louis and Evan Schaeffer and Andrea Lamere of Godfrey.

Filipino Witness Doomed Vioxx

2005-09-02T18:21:00.000-07:00

Filipino Witness Doomed Vioxx

News Report,
Filipino Reporter, Sep 01, 2005
The crucial testimony of Dr. Maria Araneta, the Filipino coroner who conducted the autopsy on a Texas man who died while taking Vioxx, helped convince a Texas jury last Aug. 20 to return a stunning $254.4 million verdict against pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. in the first trial involving health risks from the popular pain reliever.

The jury award to the man’s widow, Carol Ernst, is the largest ever against the New Jersey-based drugmaker, which faces more than 4,000 other Vioxx-related suits in state and federal courts. It is also one of the largest damage awards ever to a single plaintiff.

The Manila-born Araneta testified on video that Robert Ernst, who died from an irregular heartbeat in 2001, more likely died from arrhythmia caused by a heart attack while taking Vioxx for eight years.

At the time of Ernst’s death, Araneta was assistant coroner with the Johnson County Medical Examiner’s Office and performed autopsies at Walls Regional Hospital in Cleburne near Fort Worth, Texas, where she worked from 1994 to 2002.

A graduate of the University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital (UP-PGH), Araneta moved to Abu Dhabi in the Middle East, and was only flown by the plaintiff’s legal team to Angleton, Texas — 40 miles south of Houston — to testify.

Plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier hired a private investigator to find Araneta. Lanier then persuaded the Filipina doctor to return to Texas, telling her she’s “going to make such a good witness.”

Two days later, Araneta gave a videotaped deposition in which she said she believed that Ernst had actually died of a heart attack, despite her autopsy finding, which was devastating to Merck’s defense. Araneta’s testimony also helped cement Lanier’s place as one of the top civil trial lawyers in America.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September last year when a study showed it doubled risk of heart attack or stroke if taken 18 months or longer. But Merck contends no studies link Vioxx to arrhythmia based on Araneta’s testimony, and therefore the drug couldn’t have caused Ernst’s death.

In the private deposition last July 26, Araneta testified that arrhythmia, the clinical term for an irregular heartbeat, “does not spontaneously occur.” She testified that “something must trigger it.” Her opinion counters Vioxx maker Merck & Co.’s reliance on her report to bolster its position that Ernst didn’t have a heart attack.

Araneta’s opinion supports plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier’s contention that Ernst suffered a heart attack that killed him too fast to leave evidence of heart damage. He also has drawn jurors’ attention to Merck’s medical manual for doctors, which says arrhythmia in some form occurs in more than 90 percent of heart attack patients.

She said Ernst probably had a heart attack because a blood clot blocked blood in an artery already clogged with plaque. However, vigorous CPR conducted on Ernst — including pounding on his chest that fractured some of his ribs — probably dislodged the clot and his sudden death left no time for his heart to show damage, she said.

“Vigorous CPR could dislodge a clot. Also, the clot may be small. It doesn’t have to be a big clot to cause a myocardial infarction,” she said, using the medical term for heart attack.

Araneta also conceded that sudden cardiac death with clogged arteries can occur without a heart attack.

Ernst, a 59-year-old marathoner, was taking Vioxx for eight months to ease pain in his hands before he died in his bed on May 6, 2001.

Merck’s lawyers have relied heavily on Araneta’s autopsy, which attributed Ernst’s death to arrhythmia secondary to blocked arteries and doesn’t mention heart attack as a cause.

However, Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, didn’t identify Araneta by name as a witness by the pretrial deadline, so Merck’s team balked at what they called her surprise appearance.

Merck’s former marketing director also testified — saying the drug was never tested for its effects on the heart before going on the market

Merck said it would appeal the decision, citing several grounds for reversal, such as the plaintiff’s use of a surprise witness, referring to Araneta.

The jury said Carol Ernst should be awarded $229 million in punitive damages and $24.5 million for mental anguish and economic losses. Because punitive damages are capped at $1.6 million in Texas, Ernst would receive no more than $26.1 million total.

Jurors said they voted to hold Merck liable in part because of videotaped testimony from Araneta. They said they were also influenced by internal documents that showed the company “seemed to care more about profits from the drug than the public’s welfare.”

More lawyers are expected to queue up cases against Merck.

One trial is scheduled to begin this September in Atlantic City, and the first federal case will begin in New Orleans in November.

Reports said some 20 million people used Vioxx for chronic pain after it was approved in 1999. It brought in $2.5 billion in sales a year.

News of the verdict sent the company’s stock price down 7 percent to $28.06 at the close of regular trading, a loss of $5 billion in market value.

Poles sue Vioxx makers

2005-09-02T18:19:00.000-07:00

Poles sue Vioxx makers

Fifty thousand Poles have taken Vioxx, the painkiller that, as a Texas court has proved, leads to heart attacks and strokes. Four of those who have taken the life-threatening painkiller have decided to sue the American pharmaceutical company for compensation in the USA.

Already four Poles are determined to fight for compensations in American courts after they got serious heart failures. The internationally known medicine called Vioxx was meant to be a highly effective painkiller. However, instead of healing their painful backbones the patients almost killed their hearts. Many of them used vioxx until it was finally withdrawn from the market in October last year.

Out of the 50 thousands Poles who have taken the medicine or rather poison – one would say- 81 have reported suffering harm on their health caused by the medicine.

An American law firm which have already won an exceptionally high compensation of 253mln US dollars for an American widow of a vioxx victim, is ready to represent the Polish sufferers in court promising not lower compensations than those of 75thousand US dollars, says Lawrence Landskroner of Lawrence Landskroner and Associates in Ohio, the USA:

Patients have to collect a very detailed documentation of their treatment process and prove that the medicine was taken for at least 18 months . Then, as the damage on health is significant, the chances to win the case seem to be very high.

Even though the issue of vioxx is not the first one, and trials connected with similar pharmaceutical affairs haven’t finished up yet in Polish courts, Poles seem to be unable to stop just gobbling tons of drugs.

Statistics say that about 40% of Polish people visit a pharmacy once a month. While 80% of Poles suffer from headaches, 79% of them get themselves any painkiller without prescription.

The pharmaceutical business seems to be flourish in Poland no matter what.. But is it at least properly controlled? Jarosław Pinkas of the Kardiological Institut in Warsaw:

American courts have to deal now with some 4 thousand cases from the whole world concerning Vioxx , as the medicine was distributed in 80 countries. (pg)

Vioxx surprise settlements?

2005-09-02T18:18:00.000-07:00

Vioxx surprise settlements?
Fri 02 Sep 2005 06:53 am CST
WASHINGTON (myDNA News)

To learn more visit myDNA's News Center Read More

In a surprise move, giant pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck is considering settling some of the Vioxx claims. The admission, reported in last Friday's Wall Street Journal, would pertain to individuals without risk factors for heart attack or stroke and who took Vioxx for more than eighteen months. The revelation appears counter to the company's previous position of fighting each of the Vioxx lawsuits.

Although the new position was communicated by a Merck spokesperson, the company's chief counsel has stated that Merck's strategy of fighting every claim has not changed. Other legal experts believe the decision to settle at least some of the claims will actually be a cost-saving measure for Merck over the long-run.

The apparent decision to settle cases among individuals who used Vioxx for more than a year and a half, and who were absent cardiovascular risk factors, will involve an undetermined number of claims. Risk factors are conditions that have been found to be associated with increases in heart disease. Major risk factors include heredity, age, smoking, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and physical inactivity.

It is estimated that more than 20 million people took Vioxx in the United States alone, before the drug was pulled from the marketplace last September. Merck withdrew Vioxx after a company sponsored clinical trial found an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes in people who took the drug for more than 18 months.

On August 19th, a Texas jury found Merck liable for the death of a 59-year old man who took Vioxx for eight months. The jury awarded his widow $253 million in damages although the award is likely to be capped to about $26 million under Texas law.
To learn more visit myDNA's News Center Read More
Reviewed: September 02, 2005 Rick Nauert PhD
Source:

myDNA.com

VIOXX: ITALIAN CONSUMERS START CLASS ACTION AGAINST MERCK

2005-09-01T12:12:00.000-07:00

VIOXX: ITALIAN CONSUMERS START CLASS ACTION AGAINST MERCK
(AGI) - Rome, Italy, Sep 1 - Italian customers having been prescribed Vioxx produced by pharmaceutical company Merck can contact Italian consumer association Codacons if they wish to partake in the class-action in US courts. The case is being brought to bear after the drug was found to have damaging side-effects. Choosing US courts de facto sets a limit to the time available to submit for damages. "According to Food and Drug Administration reports Vioxx has been deemed responsible for the death of some 27 thousand persons due to sudden heart attack", reads a Codacons communique'. Codacons also specifies that the interests of some 100 Italian citizens have been brought to bear. "The pharmaceutical company has been forced by Illinois judge - says Chicago based Codancons lawyer Kenneth Moll - to pay 250 million dollars to the families of the victims for having deliberately covered up the nature of the drug's negative side-effects". In the US alone some 240 thousand citizens are claiming damages. The courts are yet to designate eligibility criteria. According to Codacons as many as 3.5 million Italians may have taken Vioxx at some stage. Codacons has also drawn up a blacklist of dangerous drugs: 28 drugs in all, 15 active ingredients; top of the list are Bextra (valdecobix) and celebrex (celecobix) leading to requests by consumers and the Italian drug agency AIFA for them to be banned. (AGI) -
011751 SET 05

Merck Voluntary Recalls Vioxx® After Experts Claim it Can Cause Serious Injury

2005-06-24T21:34:00.000-07:00

Merck Voluntary Recalls Vioxx® After Experts Claim it Can Cause Serious Injury

Merck & Co Inc. voluntarily recalled the widely prescribed arthritis drug Vioxx® on September 30, 2004, amidst evidence that it drastically increased users' risk of heart attack and stroke. This Vioxx® recall is believed to be the most expensive drug recall in the history of the pharmaceutical industry.

The Vioxx® recall is so large that Merck suffered a 27 percent decrease (nearly $25 billion) in stock value the same day, thereby prompting a full 0.6 percent drop in the Dow Jones industrial average. According to financial reports, the makers of Vioxx® claim that the drug accounted for at least 10 percent of Merck's revenue in 2003.

A three-year study of 1,300 Vioxx® users found 15 cases of heart attack, stroke, and blood clots; this was three times the number reported among participants taking a placebo. Merck maintains this risk was relatively low, but it nonetheless was enough to warrant a Vioxx® recall to prevent further injury.

It is important to the note that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn't order the Vioxx® recall, although it did issue a public health advisory to all Vioxx® users about the recall and how Vioxx® can cause injury: anyone who uses Vioxx® should stop taking it immediately and talk to a doctor about an alternative medication.

Vioxx® is dangerous. If you have taken Vioxx®, you may be able to file pharmaceutical litigation claim today, as you may be eligible for compensation. Contact a personal injury attorney who specializes in pharmaceutical litigation today to find out more about Vioxx®, Vioxx®-related injury, the Vioxx® recall, and how to file a Vioxx® claim.

With Vioxx gone, pain drug prices jump - study

2005-06-09T20:11:00.000-07:00

With Vioxx gone, pain drug prices jump - study

June 09, 2005 10:44:49 (ET)

In June 2 WASHINGTON story headlined "With Vioxx gone, pain drug prices jump - study," please read date as June 2 ... instead of ... June 1 ... (Corrects date of release of report).

In 7th paragraph, please read "... prescription-strength Motrin, the ibuprofen marketed by Pfizer..." instead of "...prescription-strength Motrin, the ibuprofen marketed by Johnson & Johnson's unit McNeil-PPC..."(Corrects the maker of prescription-strength Motrin).

A corrected version follows:

By Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON, June 2 (Reuters) - Prices for dozens of prescription painkillers have jumped by as much as 15 percent since Merck & Co. Inc. (MRK,Trade) pulled its once-popular arthritis drug Vioxx from the market last year, a report released on Thursday found.

Thirty-six pain medicines, including Mobic, Motrin and Relafen, saw price increases after studies linked Vioxx to heart problems and led to its withdrawal in September, according to the Consumers Union publication, "Consumer Reports Best Buy Drugs."

The number of prescriptions for many of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, also increased, the consumer group said.

Consumer Union's findings come weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called on Pfizer Inc. (PFE,Trade) to pull its rival drug Bextra over similar heart problems and the added risk of a fatal skin condition. The agency also ordered stronger warnings on all pain medicines.

Vioxx, Bextra and Pfizer's other pain drug Celebrex are a type of NSAID known as Cox-2 drugs that are thought to be easier on the stomach than older counterparts like naproxen or ibuprofen.

The report, which analyzed data from health care information firm NDCIHealth, also found 17 drugs dropped in price while 10 remained flat. It did not evaluate over-the-counter pain medicines.

Since Vioxx's withdrawal, prices for prescription-strength Motrin, the ibuprofen marketed by Pfizer, rose 13.3 percent from $30 to $34.

Higher doses of privately-held Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals's Mobic, which is distributed in the United States by Abbott Laboratories Inc. (ABT,Trade), jumped 10.6 percent while lower doses were up 6.7 percent.

Prescriptions for the highly-marketed drug also jumped in the wake of Vioxx's demise, doubling from 314,000 to 742,000 since September, the report said.

Consumer Union's Steven Findlay, who wrote the analysis, said Boehringer's advertising showed the power of marketing and its impact on drug prices.

"Doctors and consumers are unquestionably swayed by the ads and promotions for costly new medicines, even when lower-cost options that are just as effective are available," he said.

Boehringer officials have said Mobic was their second-best selling drug last year, up 44 percent.

Wyeth's (WYE,Trade) Lodinem cost $150 in September and now costs $170, or 13.3 percent, more. GlaxoSmithKline Plc's ((GSK.L)) (GSK,Trade) Relafen also jumped 10.6 percent,

Costs for lower doses of Celebrex rose 1.5 percent, while higher doses rose 0.9 percent.

FDA officials have said data does not show if some patients benefit more from certain painkillers, and have called on companies for more studies

Still, Consumer's Union said most studies show NSAIDs "are equally effective," adding that patients do not need more expensive prescriptions unless they do not respond to other, cheaper versions.

Instead, the group said consumers should stick to generic ibuprofen, naproxen and salsalate. While some of their prices also rose, they were still cheaper.

The cost of a 400 milligram version of generic ibuprofen rose from $24 to $26 since September as did generic salsalate, 3M Co. (MMM,Trade) unit 3M Pharmaceutical's brand name salsalate, called Disalicid, dropped 1.5 percent in price at $74.

Judge Refuses to Dismiss First Vioxx Lawsuit

2005-05-31T19:04:00.000-07:00

Judge Refuses to Dismiss First Vioxx Lawsuit

The lawsuit against Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, will proceed to trial in May.

Montgomery, AL (PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- On April 26th, the honorable Judge Rochester ruled against a defense petition to dismiss a Vioxx lawsuit filed by Beasley Allen on behalf of Cheryl Rogers (Circuit or State Court of Clay County in Ashland, Ala, case number CV 03-073, Cheryl Rogers V. Merck).

The suit was filed in August 2003 in Ashland, AL by Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. on behalf of Cheryl Rogers, the widow of Howard Brad Rogers. The lawsuit contends that Mr. Rogers, a 42-year-old ambulance dispatcher, died from a heart attack on September 4th, 2001, after taking Vioxx for shoulder pain. This case, the country's first involving Vioxx, is slated to go to trial on May 23rd.

Merck had asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit, contending that Mr. Rogers, who died of a heart attack after being prescribed Vioxx, never took the drug. Lawyers for Beasley Allen disputed Merck's claims and said that they had evidence that Mr. Rogers took the drug before he died.

Jere Beasley, attorney for Cheryl Rogers responded, "The Order was exactly as we expected. Merck's Motion to Dismiss lacked foundation and they had to know it. It was a ploy to discredit our client, a grieving widow and single mother. We have always believed this case to be a strong one and when the jury learns how truly bad Merck's conduct has been, I am convinced they will want to punish the company. We anticipate a jury returning a large verdict. We know from Brad Rogers' medical records that he was prescribed Vioxx and that he was taking it. An autopsy proved that the drug caused his death. We will now have the opportunity to prove our case in the courtroom before a Clay County, Alabama jury.”

According to a motion recently filed by Beasley Allen, Merck violated a protective order by disclosing personal and confidential information to the news media related to Cheryl Rogers and her deceased husband. In addition, the motion cites Merck has violated provisions of HIPAA by disclosing personal medical information pertaining to Mr. Rogers. The motion requests that the court vacate its protective order as it relates to documents produced by Merck.

"Releasing Merck's documents would serve the public interest by exposing its wrongful conduct over the years." Beasley adds. "Clinical tests have proven Vioxx is and was a dangerous drug. It has killed literally thousands of unsuspecting victims who trusted the company and who had no idea that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes."

Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. has been in the forefront of the effort to have all of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (Bextra, Celebrex and Vioxx) taken off the market since the law firm took on its first case against Merck more than four years ago. Beasley Allen is spearheading the review of over 31,000 claims against the manufacturers of Bextra, Celebrex, and Vioxx, having filed over 160 cases to date.

Merck Could Face 100K Vioxx Suits

2005-05-25T14:35:00.000-07:00

Merck Could Face 100K Vioxx Suits
New Orleans, May 24, 2005

A federal judge told dozens of lawyers crowded into a courtroom here Monday that there could ultimately be up to 100,000 cases filed against Merck over its now-withdrawn pain reliever Vioxx, and that he could hear a case as early as the fall.

There have been more than 2,000 cases filed against the New Jersey-based drugmaker so far. The pretrial issues for federal cases are being handled by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon, and lawyers from both sides met here for a monthly status conference.

Analysts have estimated that Merck's potential liability could reach $18 billion. Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market last September after a study showed it doubled patients' risk of heart attacks and stroke in people taking the drug longer than 18 months.

The plaintiff's attorneys are squabbling with Merck over records of thousands of company employees engaged in marketing the drug. A lawyer for Merck told the court Monday it would be "tremendously burdensome" to provide the information. The lead plaintiffs' lawyer, Russell Herman, countered afterward that Merck's sales representatives were "told to dodge" potentially awkward questions. Plaintiffs cite an internal Merck document with instructions to the representatives, referred to as "Dodge Ball Vioxx" in a court filing.

"All we want to do is spread some disinfectant," said Herman. The lead Merck lawyer, Phillip Wittmann, suggested it would be more reasonable to look at Merck employees on a case-by-case basis.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs also are trying to extract information from the Food and Drug Administration, which regulated the drug and has been blamed for lax oversight. Plaintiff lawyers have complained the FDA has not been forthcoming with requested information. Meetings between lawyers for both sides and FDA officials are slated for this week, with additional meetings scheduled for next month.

Fallon told the lawyers Monday he wants the cases to move along, and suggested that trials in his court might be held by next fall. The drug company has vowed to defend every one, and has set aside hundreds of millions to defend itself.

Still, the first cases are set to be heard in state courts--Texas in July, and New Jersey in August. The delicate process of coordinating the federal suits with the state cases was underscored Monday by the presence in the courtroom of state court judges from those two states as well as Alabama, where one case already has been postponed.

"We intend to try to cooperate as much as possible," New Jersey Judge Carol Higbee told Fallon on Monday, adding that there would be no "friction" between the various jurisdictions.

Vixoxx Recall

2005-04-28T14:42:00.000-07:00

On September 30, 2004, the prescription drug company Merck announced a worldwide withdrawal of its arthritis and pain medication Rofecoxib, sold under the brand name Vioxx (or Ceoxx), because a study showed an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
The study that led to the recall of Vioxx showed that patients without a history of coronary heart disease or other risk factors regularly taking Vioxx faced twice the risk of a heart attack compared to patients not taking Vioxx. Vioxx users with a history of cardiovascular issues were at a five-fold increased risk.

E-mails Suggest Merck May Have Known of Vioxx's Risks: Report

2005-04-26T12:44:00.000-07:00

E-mails Suggest Merck May Have Known of Vioxx's Risks: Report

Did Merck officials know about the heart risks posed by its now-defunct painkilling drug Vioxx as far back as five years ago?

The New York Times reported Sunday that in 2000, Merck overruled one of its own scientists after he suggested that a 73-year-old female patient in a Vioxx clinical trial had probably died of a heart attack.

In an e-mail exchange concerning Vioxx, a top Merck scientist repeatedly encouraged the researcher to change his views about the death "so that we don't raise concerns." In later reports to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and in a paper published in 2003, the company labeled the cause of death as "unknown," the newspaper said.

The discussion of the woman's death appears in several previously undisclosed Merck records, including e-mails from Dr. Edward M. Scolnick, Merck's senior scientist from 1985 to 2002, and Dr. Alise S. Reicin, a vice president for clinical research. The messages point to Merck's concerns about data contradicting its view that Vioxx was safe, the Times said.

When Vioxx was pulled from the market last September, Merck officials said they had only recently learned that the drug posed a risk of heart attack and stroke. At least 4,600 people or their survivors are suing the drug company, saying Vioxx — a member of a class of drugs called cox-2 inhibitors — caused their heart attacks or strokes. The e-mails and other internal Merck documents, including the report of the woman's death, were given to the Times by an unnamed source working with plaintiffs, the newspaper said.

A lawyer for Merck told the Times that the company had disclosed all information from clinical trials about Vioxx to the FDA. And Scolnick's e-mails "merely reflected his concern that the FDA weigh Vioxx's benefits and risks fairly. The e-mail discussion between the Merck scientists reflected an honest scientific debate over the cause of the woman's death," the newspaper reported, paraphrasing the lawyer.

Earlier this month, another cox-2 drug, Bextra, was withdrawn from the market for the same cardiovascular concerns. A third cox-2, Celebrex, remains available to U.S. consumers, but the FDA has mandated that it carry a strong "black box" warning label indicating the potential for long-term heart risks.

Merck asks judge to dismiss Vioxx trial

2005-04-13T13:18:00.000-07:00

APR. 13 12:31 A.M. ET Accusing the plaintiff in the case of lying, drug company Merck & Co. asked a judge Tuesday to dismiss the first scheduled trial over its now defunct Vioxx pain reliever, which is slated to begin next month.

In a court filing, Merck said Cheryl Rogers, an Alabama woman who filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of her husband, lied in her deposition because the Vioxx pills she claims lead to his death didn't leave the company until six months after he died.

Rogers had claimed in a sworn statement that her husband was taking Vioxx samples provided by Dr. William Clancy in the days before he died, according to the motion filed by the drug company in Clay Count, Ala. But when Merck checked the lot numbers of the remaining samples against its records, the company said it found that those samples did not leave the company's possession until March 2002. Howard Rogers died on Sept. 4, 2001.

The motion also said that Clancy's records don't show that Rogers received any samples.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Andy Birchfield, expressed skepticism about Merck's claim, saying he wanted to see Merck's records. He said medical records prove his client's husband was taking Vioxx.

"This is a hardball tactic, claiming the plaintiff lied under oath. I'm not surprised. Merck has a lot riding on this," he said.

Merck pulled Vioxx off the market last September after it was linked to increased risk of heart attack and strokes. Analysts have estimated the company could pay out between $4 billion and $30 billion in product liability claims. Merck has pledged to defend case vigorously.

"The court should dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on both Merck and the court," Merck said in its motion.

Mike Brock, one of Merck's lawyers, said the company has a reliable record keeping system for its samples.

Last week, Birchfield was named co-lead counsel for the plaintiff's steering committee for the federal Vioxx cases. The committee coordinates activities such as gathering evidence and plotting strategy with the other plaintiff attorneys and works with the Judge and Merck's lawyers to move the cases forward.

The Rogers case is slated to begin May 23 in state court in Alabama. It was unclear when the court would rule on Merck's motion.

There were other inconsistencies in Rogers' testimony, the motion said.

Initially, Rogers said the doctor gave her husband eight Vioxx sample boxes, each containing four blister-packed tablets. However, when she gave them to Merck's lawyers it was obvious they were never used because the cellophane wrapping around the boxes was intact.

Then Rogers said that Clancy gave her husband three eight-box sets. She claimed she left one set in a car she sold. But the set which remained in the cellophane as well as three loose boxes came for a group of samples were not shipped to Merck sales representatives until March 2002, Merck said.

Clancy said that residents note when they give patients samples. He said there is no record of Rogers receiving samples, and the amount allegedly dispensed exceeded the typical size. There was a record of a Vioxx prescription but it was never filled, according to the motion.

Analysts have been eagerly anticipating the first trial because plaintiffs will lay out their evidence for proving that Merck knew that Vioxx was dangerous but sold it anyway. Such proof could increase Merck's liability.

Merck has long denied the plaintiff's claim. Merck has said it will be difficult to prove that Vioxx caused individuals' heart attacks or strokes because such problems are not uncommon.

In trading Tuesday, Merck shares rose 67 cents, or 2 percent, to close at $33.81 the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has lost 25 percent of its value since Merck withdrew Vioxx.

Vioxx lawsuits stalled

2005-04-12T19:56:00.000-07:00

Mobile cases among hundreds sent to federal judge in New Orleans for pretrial discovery

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

By BRENDAN KIRBY

Staff Reporter

Several lawsuits against the pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. have stalled in federal court in Mobile, and judges have transferred pretrial proceedings related to the painkiller Vioxx to New Orleans.

The latest lawsuit affected involves seven plaintiffs who sued the New Jersey-based drug company last month. U.S. District Judge William Steele last week ordered a temporary halt to the litigation. Barring objection from the plaintiffs' lawyers, U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in New Orleans will oversee the efforts by lawyers to take depositions from witnesses and gather other information.

In February, a group of federal judges known as the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that Fallon would handle such pretrial matters in the federal cases. Fallon reportedly was selected because of his experience presiding over trials involving complex pharmaceutical litigation.

After the pretrial discovery is complete, the local cases will be transferred back to District Court in Mobile for trial.

"We're kind of in a holding pattern right now," said Andrew Citrin, a Daphne lawyer who represents several of the plaintiffs.

Lawyers representing Merck stated in a written request for a temporary delay that consolidating discovery in one court makes sense for reasons of efficiency.

"There is no dispute that this case involves the same factual inquiries that the Panel (on Multidistrict Litigation) notes were present in the Vioxx cases generally, thereby warranting coordinated pretrial proceedings," the motion states.

Merck yanked Vioxx from the market on Sept. 30 after its research indicated long-term use of the anti-inflammatory drug sharply increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Since then, new information has suggested that those medical problems may be associated with an entire class of painkillers. The company has discussed the possibility of putting the drug back on the market but has made no firm commitments.

Analysts have estimated that Merck's legal liability ranges from $4 billion to $30 billion.

Merck officials have said hundreds of lawsuits have been filed in state courts across the country. One of them -- brought by the prominent Montgomery law firm of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles before Merck pulled the drug from the market -- is scheduled to go to trial next month in Clay County Circuit Court. It would be the first Vioxx lawsuit in the nation to reach trial.

In addition to the state cases, according to Merck, 151 federal cases have been filed.

At least three of them were filed in U.S. District Court in Mobile. Judges have transferred pretrial proceedings on two of those. Citrin technically has until April 18 to oppose the transfer in the third, but he said there is little point.

"We've done it in the past, and it's worthless," he said.

The lawsuit originated in Mobile County Circuit Court, but Merck got the case transferred to federal court. The allegations in the complaint mirror those contained in the hun dreds of other Vioxx lawsuits across the country.

"They've had the predictable and proven side effects," Citrin said. "Some are more serious than others, but they've all had the heart attacks and strokes."

Jim Fitzpatrick, an attorney representing Merck, said he remains confident that the evidence will show the drug manufacturer has acted responsibly.

"It is important to remember that each one of these cases have their own facts. These are individuals," he said.

Fitzpatrick also noted that the plaintiffs must prove a cause-and-effect relationship between Vioxx and their medical conditions. Many may have suffered strokes and heart attacks for reasons unrelated to their use of the drug, he said.

"That's a difficult burden," he said.

A committee of lawyers will take depositions and make requests for records and other documents. Citrin said he will have an opportunity to submit questions.

Citrin and Merck's Alabama-based lawyers, meanwhile, can question witnesses related specifically to the local cases.

Citrin said discovery in consolidated cases usually is "very ably" done. And he acknowledged arguments that it is more efficient having one judge oversee discovery.

"But it really means a lot of times that we local lawyers lose control," he said.

The Merck motion argues the company would be "significantly and unfairly prejudiced" if the cases in Mobile and other courts were allowed to proceed. For example, the motion contends, employees of the company likely would have to submit to multiple depositions in multiple jurisdictions, answering essentially the same questions over and over.

Any delay to the plaintiffs, the motion states, would be minimal and "the prejudice to Merck would far outstrip any harm to Plaintiffs."

VIOXX LAWSUIT NOW IN IDAHO

2005-04-12T19:55:00.000-07:00

VIOXX LAWSUIT NOW IN IDAHO
Mar 29, 2005
From NBC Idaho

A Boise attorney has filed a class action lawsuit against drug manufacturer Merck and Company.

LaDawn Marsters' litigation asks the company to reimburse Idaho residents who bought the prescription painkiller Vioxx.

She says the lawsuit covers Idaho residents who bought the drug between May 1999 and September 30th, 2004 -- but who have not suffered a heart attack or stroke.

The suit also demands Merck pay for doctor visits for those who took the drug during that time to determine if they were affected by taking it.

Merck recalled Vioxx in September. Studies showed it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Vioxx Has Been Recalled

2005-04-08T20:11:00.000-07:00

Merck Announces Voluntary Worldwide
Withdrawal of VIOXX^®

WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J., Sept. 30, 2004—Merck & Co., Inc. today announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of VIOXX^® (rofecoxib), its arthritis and acute pain medication. The company’s decision, which is effective immediately, is based on new, three-year data from a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on VIOXX) trial.

The trial, which is being stopped, was designed to evaluate the efficacy of VIOXX 25 mg in preventing recurrence of colorectal polyps in patients with a history of colorectal adenomas. In this study, there was an increased relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, beginning after 18 months of treatment in the patients taking VIOXX compared to those taking placebo. The results for the first 18 months of the APPROVe study did not show any increased risk of confirmed cardiovascular events on VIOXX, and in this respect, are similar to the results of two placebo-controlled studies described in the current U.S. labeling for VIOXX.

“We are taking this action because we believe it best serves the interests of patients,” said Raymond V. Gilmartin, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Merck. “Although we believe it would have been possible to continue to market VIOXX with labeling that would incorporate these new data, given the availability of alternative therapies, and the questions raised by the data, we concluded that a voluntary withdrawal is the responsible course to take.”

APPROVe was a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to determine the effect of 156 weeks (three years) of treatment with VIOXX on the recurrence of neoplastic polyps of the large bowel in patients with a history of colorectal adenoma. The trial enrolled 2,600 patients and compared VIOXX 25 mg to placebo. The trial began enrollment in 2000.

VIOXX was launched in the United States in 1999 and has been marketed in more than 80 countries. In some countries, the product is marketed under the trademark CEOXX. Worldwide sales of VIOXX in 2003 were $2.5 billion.

Results of the VIGOR (VIOXX Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research) study, released in March 2000, demonstrated that the risk of gastrointestinal toxicity with VIOXX was less than with naproxen, but indicated an increased risk of cardiovascular events versus naproxen. However, in other studies including Merck’s Phase III studies that were the basis of regulatory approval of the product, there was not an increased risk of cardiovascular events with VIOXX compared with placebo or VIOXX compared with other non-naproxen non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Merck began long-term randomized clinical trials to provide an even more comprehensive picture of the cardiovascular safety profile of VIOXX.

“Merck has always believed that prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials are the best way to evaluate the safety of medicines. APPROVe is precisely this type of study—and it has provided us with new data on the cardiovascular profile of VIOXX,” said Peter S. Kim, Ph.D., president of Merck Research Laboratories. “While the cause of these results is uncertain at this time, they suggest an increased risk of confirmed cardiovascular events beginning after 18 months of continuous therapy. While we recognize that VIOXX benefited many patients, we believe this action is appropriate.”

Merck has informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and regulatory authorities in other countries of its decision. The company also is in the process of notifying health care practitioners in the United States and other countries where VIOXX is marketed. Patients who are currently taking VIOXX should contact their health care providers to discuss discontinuing use of VIOXX and possible alternative treatments. In addition, patients and health care professionals may obtain information from www.merck.com and www.vioxx.com, or may call (888) 36-VIOXX (1-888-368-4699).

The results of clinical studies with one molecule in a given class are not necessarily applicable to others in the class. Therefore, the clinical significance of the APPROVe trial, if any, for the long-term use of other drugs in this class, consisting of COX-2 specific inhibitors and NSAIDs, is unknown. The company will work with regulatory authorities in the 47 countries where ARCOXIA is approved to assess whether changes to the prescribing information for this class of drugs, including ARCOXIA, are warranted. Merck is continuing to seek approval for ARCOXIA in other countries, including the United States.

Merck will continue its extensive clinical program to collect additional longer-term data for ARCOXIA, its medication for arthritis and acute pain.

With regard to financial guidance, prior to today’s announcement, Merck remained comfortable with its 2004 earnings per share guidance of $3.11 to $3.17. The company currently expects earnings per share to be negatively affected by $0.50 to $0.60 as a result of today’s announcement. This estimate includes foregone sales, writeoffs of inventory held by Merck, customer returns of product previously sold and costs to undertake the pullback of the product. Included in this cost estimate is the expectation of foregone fourth quarter sales of VIOXX of $700 million to $750 million. In addition, Merck expects that worldwide approximately one month of inventory is held by customers and will be returned.

At this point it is uncertain which of these costs will be recorded in the third quarter and which will be recorded in the fourth quarter. Therefore, at this point, Merck is retracting the third quarter guidance it had previously provided.

Merck will report third-quarter earnings on Oct. 21. At that point, the company will provide additional information regarding the costs for product withdrawal.

About Merck

Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company. Merck discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of innovative products to improve human and animal health, directly and through its joint ventures.

Forward Looking Statement

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the statements. The forward-looking statements may include statements regarding product development, product potential or financial performance. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual results may differ materially from those projected. Merck undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Forward-looking statements in this press release should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect Merck’s business, particularly those mentioned in the cautionary statements in Item 1 of Merck’s Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2003, and in its periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K (if any), which the company incorporates by reference.

Vioxx Pharmaceutical Lawsuits

US Supreme Court to consider allowing shareholder lawsuits over failure of Vioxx painkiller

Vioxx Lawsuit

Study Links Certain Painkillers to High Cholesterol Levels

Vioxx whistle-blower weighs in on demoted antibiotic Ketek

Doctors warned: take care with freebies

Merck Pharmaceutical Drug War Comes to Heartland -- First Vioxx Trial in Midwest Announced

Merck Pharmaceutical Drug War Comes to Heartland -- First Vioxx Trial in Midwest Announced

Federal Court Tosses Vioxx Suit

Vioxx set to take center stage in Madison County

U.S. jury awards millions in Vioxx lawsuit

Moran sets trial date in Vioxx, but Walgreens wants out

Filipino Witness Doomed Vioxx

Poles sue Vioxx makers

Vioxx surprise settlements?

VIOXX: ITALIAN CONSUMERS START CLASS ACTION AGAINST MERCK

Merck Voluntary Recalls Vioxx® After Experts Claim it Can Cause Serious Injury

With Vioxx gone, pain drug prices jump - study

Judge Refuses to Dismiss First Vioxx Lawsuit

Merck Could Face 100K Vioxx Suits

Vixoxx Recall

E-mails Suggest Merck May Have Known of Vioxx's Risks: Report

Merck asks judge to dismiss Vioxx trial

Vioxx lawsuits stalled

Mobile cases among hundreds sent to federal judge in New Orleans for pretrial discovery

VIOXX LAWSUIT NOW IN IDAHO

Vioxx Has Been Recalled

Merck Announces Voluntary WorldwideWithdrawal of VIOXX®

Merck Announces Voluntary Worldwide
Withdrawal of VIOXX^®