• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Merck Scientist Plays Down Vioxx Risk

Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2006, 16:00 CST

By Jon Hurdle

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey -- 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)

Source: REUTERS

More News in this Category