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

Vioxx plaintiff had health problems, Merck says

Posted on: Tuesday, 11 July 2006, 13:34 CDT

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.

Source: REUTERS

More News in this Category