Vioxx plaintiff had health problems, Merck says

By Jon Hurdle

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) – A 68-year-old New
Jersey woman who blames the pain drug Vioxx for her heart
attack had a series of serious health problems that were the
real cause of the attack, a lawyer for Merck & Co. told a court
on Tuesday.

In closing arguments in the latest lawsuit against the
maker of Vioxx, a jury of five men and two women heard that
Elaine Doherty was obese, had diabetes, high blood pressure,
elevated cholesterol, a family history of heart disease, and a
sedentary lifestyle, all of which contributed to her heart
attack in January 2004.

“For someone like Mrs. Doherty, it’s not whether you are
going to have a heart attack, it’s when,” Merck lawyer Diane
Sullivan told the court at the conclusion of the third Vioxx
trial to be heard in Merck’s home state of New Jersey.

Lawyers for Doherty will present closing arguments on
Tuesday afternoon. Jurors are expected to begin deliberations
Wednesday morning.

About 11,500 lawsuits have now been filed in the United
States against Merck by former Vioxx users who say the drug
caused their heart attacks or strokes. The Doherty case is the
seventh contested in court by Merck which has said it will
fight the suits one by one.

Doherty had seven out of nine major risk factors for a
heart attack as identified by many cardiologists, Sullivan said
at the end of a trial that started on June 5.

Sullivan, in a speech lasting about two and a half hours,
also rebutted claims by Doherty’s lawyers that Merck had tried
to hide the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx, which the company
voluntarily pulled in September 2004 after a study showed an
increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

The company informed doctors, regulators and medical
journals in 2000 after its study showed an increased risk of
heart attacks among patients taking Vioxx, and it agreed with
the Food and Drug Administration that the information about
Vioxx risks should be published in the precautions section of
the drug’s label.

After the study indicated increased risks, Merck sent
notices to prescribing doctors with the relevant sections
highlighted in “neon yellow,” Sullivan said. “You don’t stay in
business for as long as Merck stays in business by hiding
information from doctors,” she said.

Mrs. Doherty’s doctor was given the warning about Vioxx but
continued to prescribe the drug for the plaintiff after her
heart attack, Sullivan said.

Doherty started taking Vioxx in 2001 and continued to take
it for arthritis pain during the following three years but
didn’t suffer any heart attack until January 2004, Sullivan
told the jury. “If Vioxx was so prothrombotic, why didn’t she
have any problems for all those years?” Sullivan asked.

Merck has won three of the six cases that have so far been
decided in court. In April, an Atlantic City jury awarded $13.5
million to 77-year-old John McDarby after finding that Vioxx
contributed to his heart attack and that Merck failed to warn
of the drug’s risks. But the same jury concluded that Vioxx did
not cause the heart attack of 60-year-old Thomas Cona whose
suit was heard at the same time.