Merck cleared in personal injury case against Vioxx
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The pharmaceutical company Merck has won a personal injury court case associated with its cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (Vioxx) in the United States, a jury ruled in Atlantic City last week. This is the second case to be brought against the drug giant out of more than 6000 claims expected from people or their relatives who say they were harmed by rofecoxib. Merck lost the first case.
In the most recent case, the state court jury found by an eight to one vote that Vioxx had not caused Frederick Humeston, a 60 year old Idaho postal worker, to have a heart attack in September 2001. The plaintiff had alleged that he had had a heart attack as a result of intermittent use of Vioxx over a two month period.
The jury also concluded unanimously that the company had properly marketed Vioxx. It found that Merck had given doctors adequate warning about possible health risks and did not commit consumer fraud in marketing the drug. It reached its decision after just over one day of deliberation after a seven week trial.
In a statement, Jim Fitzpatrick, a member of Merck's defence team, said, "We presented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence." He continued, "Frederick Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did whether he was taking Vioxx or not. In addition, Merck presented evidence that showed that it carefully studied Vioxx before and after approval, and consistently made the results of those studies available to the FDA and the medical community."
Frederick Humeston hugs his wife after the hearing in New Jersey
Credit: NOAH K MURRAY/AP
In the first US personal injury court case regarding Vioxx, heard in August this year, a Texas jury ruled that Merck should pay $253m (￡146m; 216m) after ruling that the drug had contributed to a man's death and that the firm had been negligent ($24.4m for economic loss and emotional anguish and $229m in punitive damages). This was later reduced to about $26m under Texan law, which limits damage payments. The company is appealing against the ruling ( BMJ 2005;331: 471, 3Sep).
Merck is facing more than 6400 further Vioxx lawsuits in the US. Kenneth Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck, said in a statement that the company would "vigorously defend them one by one over the coming years." He added, "Merck acted responsibly—from performing extensive clinical trials comparing Vioxx to NSAIDs or placebo in almost 10 000 patients prior to approval, to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market, to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did." Rofecoxib was withdrawn in September 2004 after a study showed that it doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke if it was taken for longer than 18 months. The risk was thought to be due to increased risk of thromboembolism.(Susan Mayor)
In the most recent case, the state court jury found by an eight to one vote that Vioxx had not caused Frederick Humeston, a 60 year old Idaho postal worker, to have a heart attack in September 2001. The plaintiff had alleged that he had had a heart attack as a result of intermittent use of Vioxx over a two month period.
The jury also concluded unanimously that the company had properly marketed Vioxx. It found that Merck had given doctors adequate warning about possible health risks and did not commit consumer fraud in marketing the drug. It reached its decision after just over one day of deliberation after a seven week trial.
In a statement, Jim Fitzpatrick, a member of Merck's defence team, said, "We presented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence." He continued, "Frederick Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did whether he was taking Vioxx or not. In addition, Merck presented evidence that showed that it carefully studied Vioxx before and after approval, and consistently made the results of those studies available to the FDA and the medical community."
Frederick Humeston hugs his wife after the hearing in New Jersey
Credit: NOAH K MURRAY/AP
In the first US personal injury court case regarding Vioxx, heard in August this year, a Texas jury ruled that Merck should pay $253m (￡146m; 216m) after ruling that the drug had contributed to a man's death and that the firm had been negligent ($24.4m for economic loss and emotional anguish and $229m in punitive damages). This was later reduced to about $26m under Texan law, which limits damage payments. The company is appealing against the ruling ( BMJ 2005;331: 471, 3Sep).
Merck is facing more than 6400 further Vioxx lawsuits in the US. Kenneth Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck, said in a statement that the company would "vigorously defend them one by one over the coming years." He added, "Merck acted responsibly—from performing extensive clinical trials comparing Vioxx to NSAIDs or placebo in almost 10 000 patients prior to approval, to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market, to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did." Rofecoxib was withdrawn in September 2004 after a study showed that it doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke if it was taken for longer than 18 months. The risk was thought to be due to increased risk of thromboembolism.(Susan Mayor)