Vioxx News
Vioxx-News
- Vioxx lawyers, vioxx attorneys, vioxx lawsuits, vioxx action class, vioxx recall, vioxx action class lawsuit vioxx, vioxx warning, litigation vioxx. We know the hardships that Vioxx may have given you. We're here to bring you the latest Vioxx News for everything Vioxx.
Last Update: September 26, 2006.
Latest Vioxx News
Vioxx was recalled by Merck after a study confirmed that it increases the risk of serious cardiovascular events.
Read Vioxx - The Vioxx Recall.
Vioxx, a widely used prescription medicine produced by drug manufacturing giant, Merck & Co., was voluntarily withdrawn on September 30, 2004 due to mounting evidence linking it to increased risk of cardiovascular problems. Following a three-year study involving the drug, researchers concluded that withdrawing Vioxx from the market would be in the best interest of the patients. Vioxx, a popular pain reliever used worldwide by millions of patients, has also been connected with higher incidences of respiratory and liver and kidney dysfunction.
Vioxx is classified as a COX-2 inhibitor, a type of drug deemed to be safer for the gastrointestinal system than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Unfortunately, the cardiovascular safety of this drug family has come under enormous scrutiny of late. Studies have shown that individuals taking Vioxx have between a 17 and 24 percent increase in heart attack risk compared to individuals taking comparable pain relief drugs on the market.[1]
Vioxx is used extensively for the treatment of many types of pain. While most commonly used to treat arthritis-related pain in its various forms, there are a number of other uses for Vioxx:
Relief of pain and inflammation of osteoarthritis (arthritis from wear and tear on your bones and your joints)
Relief of pain and inflammation of rheumatoid arthritis in adults (arthritis caused by a condition where your immune system attacks your joints)
Management of short-term pain
Treatment of menstrual pain (pain during womenĄŻs monthly periods)
Treatment of migraine headache attacks with or without aura.[2]
Vioxx has been linked to serious cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes. If you or someone you love has been injured as a result of taking the drug Vioxx, you may be entitled to monetary compensation.
[1] www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=518497
[2] Patient Information about Vioxx
Published: September 26, 2006
Federal jury rules in favor Merck
Source: Associated Press
The jury, made up of six women and two men, deliberated for only about three hours before reaching a verdict. The jurors left the courthouse without commenting on their decision.
Robert Garry Smith, 56, claimed in U.S. District Court that the drug contributed to a heart attack he had 3 1/2 years ago. He said he had taken Vioxx for knee pain for about 4 1/2 months but didn't realize at the time of the heart attack that Vioxx may have been a cause for concern.
But the drugmaker's defense lawyer argued there was no medical testimony indicating Vioxx had anything to do with the heart attack that Smith suffered in 2003. "That doesn't exist in this case," attorney Phil Beck said in closing arguments Tuesday morning.
Vioxx went on the market in 1999; Merck pulled it two years ago, after a study found a greater risk of heart attack in those who had taken the drug continually for at least 18 months than in those who had taken placebos.
Smith's attorneys depicted a company that hid its knowledge of the health risks associated with Vioxx in the name of profit and stock value. But Beck countered that Smith had other health factors, including high blood pressure and cholesterol, that put him at risk of a heart attack before he began taking the drug. Beck said evidence pointed to strenuous activity — namely, Smith's shoveling snow — as the heart attack trigger.
Including the verdict Tuesday, the drugmaker so far has amassed a five-and-four record in state and federal courts in Vioxx-related cases. A sixth case Merck won was overturned by a judge and is set to be retried. At least 14,200 cases are pending nationwide.
Smith's lawyer John Boundas acknowledged Smith had other risk factors for a heart attack, including high blood pressure and high cholesterol. But he said those factors shouldn't negate the risks of taking Vioxx.
Beck said Smith's medical records immediately following the heart attack do not show Smith told doctors he was taking Vioxx.
Beck said Smith's memory might be hazy on that point, and added, "Often our imperfect memories are influenced, even unconsciously, by our own self interest."
Smith had sought unspecified damages for past and future mental anguish, medical bills and loss of earnings.
Benjamin Zipursky, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law who has tracked Vioxx litigation, said he doesn't see Merck moving toward settling the many pending cases.
"They may one day, but I have no reason to believe it will happen anytime soon," he said in an interview before closing arguments.
Thrusday, April 5, 2006
Jury: Merck Liable for Man's Heart Attack
Source: Associated Press
Published: April 5, 2006
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. - A jury found Merck & Co. liable on Wednesday for one of two former
Vioxx users' heart attacks in a split verdict that awarded $4.5 million in damages to one of the plaintiffs.
ADVERTISEMENT
The state jury found the company failed to adequately warn both men about the risk factors linking the now-withdrawn painkiller to heart attacks and strokes, but said the drug was only a factor in one of the men's illnesses.
Jurors ruled that only John McDarby, 77, a retired insurance agent from Park Ridge, should receive compensation.
McDarby was awarded $3 million for pain and suffering and his wife was awarded $1.5 million. He did not immediately comment after the verdict.
The trial also included the case of Thomas Cona, a 60-year-old businessman from Cherry Hill who was stricken on a golf course after what he said was nearly two years of use. The jury said he should receive $45 to compensate him for the cost of his medication. Cona declined comment after the verdict.
A Merck spokesman, Chuck Harrell, called the split verdict a "disappointment" but said "the jury has spoken."
The verdict came after less than two days of deliberations by a jury of six women and two men.
The trial was the first dealing with plaintiffs who blamed illnesses on long-term use of the painkiller.
McDarby, a diabetic who took Vioxx for four years, suffered his heart attack in his living room and broke his hip as a result, triggering a health slide that has left him using a wheelchair and unable to care for himself, according to his attorneys.
Merck shares dropped in after-hours trading Wednesday evening, falling 99 cents, or 2.8 percent. Shares rose 51 cents, or 1.4 percent, in regular trading on the
New York Stock Exchange, a day after Merck had raised its forecast for first-quarter profit about 15 percent.
The jury was expected to return to court Thursday to decide whether the company will face punitive damages. The judge told jurors not to comment until after the entire trial ends.
Compensatory damages are given to cover a plaintiff's actual financial losses, such as medical treatment costs and lost income. Punitive damages penalize a defendant for bad conduct.
The verdict capped a monthlong trial in which lawyers for Cona and McDarby laid out now-familiar accusations that Merck rushed the drug to market in a losing battle against competitor Celebrex and actively ignored evidence it was causing cardiovascular complications.
The verdict is the second court loss for Merck, against two victories, one in a retrial.
Like jurors in five Vioxx-related trials before it, the jury saw dozens of e-mails, internal Merck documents and safety study reports and heard live testimony from a parade of cardiology experts, academics and Merck executives.
Plaintiffs lawyers said Cona and McDarby wouldn't have been taking the drug for their arthritis pain if Merck -- faced with clinical studies suggesting Vioxx was causing heart attacks and strokes -- had not persuaded the
Food and Drug Administration to dilute a new label warning in April 2002.
Merck said it thoroughly tested the drug before introducing Vioxx in 1999. It was a huge hit with older consumers because of its efficiency as a pain reliever and its lack of gastrointestinal side effects that were typical of some arthritis pain relievers.
At its peak, it sold $2.5 billion in 2003.
But Merck ultimately pulled it from the market in September 2004 after a clinical study showed that people who took it longer than 18 months faced twice the risk of suffering heart attacks and strokes.
The company now faces about 9,650 suits in state and federal courts over Vioxx.
It was the second Vioxx trial in New Jersey, where more than 5,000 suits are pending -- all before state Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, whose overloaded docket prompted her to impose time limits on the lawyers arguing the case.
She used chess clocks to keep track in the trial, which was held in a courtroom two blocks from Atlantic City's casino strip.
| |
 |
|
|
