Merck scientist plays down Vioxx risk at trial

By Jon Hurdle

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) – Vioxx appeared to
cause more heart attacks than another common pain-reliever in a
study not because Vioxx was dangerous, but because the other
drug, naproxen, helped protect the heart, a Merck & Co. Inc.
scientist told a court on Wednesday.

Dr. Briggs Morrison, a member of Merck’s Vioxx development
team in the late 1990s, told the jury at the latest Vioxx
product-liability trial that the study of some 8,000 patients
published in 2000 did not indicate that the Merck drug
increased the risk of heart attack, as critics have contended.

“The assumption was that Vioxx was neutral for
cardiovascular events,” Morrison told a jury in New Jersey
Superior Court, under questioning from Merck attorney Mike
Brock.

The reason for increased heart attacks among patients
taking Vioxx “is because NSAIDs were cardio-protective, not
because Vioxx was harmful,” he testified.

Naproxen belongs to a class of pain drugs called
non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, or NSAIDs.

Almost 10,000 people have sued Merck, claiming they were
harmed by Vioxx and accusing the drugmaker of hiding the heart
risks because it placed profits before safety.

Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug from the market in
September 2004 after a study indicated it doubled the risk of
heart attack and stroke among those taking it for longer than
18 months.

Critics and plaintiffs’ attorneys claim Merck was aware of
the increased heart risks four years earlier but deliberately
played them down by suggesting naproxen was beneficial.

The current trial is hearing the cases of 59-year-old
Thomas Cona and 77-year-old John McDarby, both long-term Vioxx
users who blame the drug for their heart attacks.

Cona’s attorney, Mark Lanier, is the only lawyer so far to
have won a Vioxx case against Merck, securing a $253 million
award from a Texas jury for the widow of a former Vioxx user.

In testimony on Wednesday, Morrison said he had argued for
also giving Vioxx patients in the 2000 study low-dose aspirin
because it was known to help protect against heart attacks.

He confirmed that he had sent an e-mail to Alise Reicin,
another senior Merck researcher, arguing for the inclusion of
aspirin. Reicin’s reply indicated that the company was indeed
worried about exposing Vioxx users to increased heart risk.

“The possibility of increased CV (cardiovascular) events is
of great concern,” Reicin wrote in an e-mail that was shown to
the jury.

In cross-examination, Lanier accused Morrison of trying to
hide the dangers of Vioxx because the company was eager to make
money from the drug. Vioxx had annual sales of about $2.5
billion when it was pulled from the market.

Lanier said Morrison had argued in 1998 for telling the
public that Cox-2 inhibitors such as Vioxx “may play a role” in
the reduction of prostacyclin, a substance that helps reduce
blood clots. Morrison had also argued against language in a
report to be presented to regulators saying Cox-2 inhibitors
“imply a major role” in lowered prostacyclin production, Lanier
said.

Morrison countered, saying that was an “incorrect
characterization” of events.

Morrison also denied Lanier’s contention that Merck’s
marketing team, rather than scientists, had driven clinical
trials of Vioxx. But he acknowledged that marketing people had
helped the company conduct follow-up studies after the drug was
approved for sale.

“They were involved in helping us decide what some of the
questions were,” he said.

The current trial, before Superior Court Judge Carol
Higbee, is scheduled to finish by March 31.

(Additional reporting by Bill Berkrot in New York)