March 22, 2007 – The multinational Merck was recently ordered to pay compensation totaling US $ 47.5 million to a man who suffered a heart attack in 2001 after using the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx.
That’s what the Atlantic City, New Jersey, Court of Appeal ruled after the jury found Vioxx to be the cause of the heart attack.1.
Pharmaceutical company Merck believes the man allegedly suffered a heart attack anyway. That’s why she will appeal the New Jersey court decision. The multinational is facing several thousand legal complaints in the United States: a class action could even be initiated, in the coming days.
Because he suffered from osteoarthritis of the knee, Frederic Humeston was prescribed the anti-inflammatory drug manufactured by Merck. But after two months of use, the 56-year-old suffered a heart attack. Suspecting that Vioxx could be the cause of his discomfort, he and his wife sued Merck in 2005, without success.
On the strength of an editorial
An editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ), in December of the same year, would allow the couple to return to the charge2. When she submitted her study, which would propel Vioxx, to the NEJM in 2000, Merck had minimized the cardiovascular risk posed by her new drug by concealing, in her results, three cases of heart attacks subsequent to taking Vioxx.
Based on this editorial, the court ordered Merck to pay the plaintiffs $ 47.5 million – $ 18 million to Mr. Humeston, two million to his wife, and $ 27.5 million to the couple in as punitive damages.
In court, Merck has maintained that Vioxx poses no increased risk of cardiovascular disease until 18 months of continuous use. In light of the Humeston case, the jury rejected this argument.
Still banned from sale
In 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew its flagship anti-inflammatory drug from the global market, after one of its own studies showed that Vioxx doubled cardiovascular risk after 18 months of treatment.
In Canada, Vioxx has still been banned for sale since its withdrawal in 2004, and no new application has been made by the manufacturer to date to reintroduce it to the market.
Martin LaSalle – PasseportSanté.net
According to AFP and BBC.
1. For more details on the prosecution, see the press release issued by the plaintiff’s attorney: www.seegerweiss.com [consulté le 19 mars 2007].
2. Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Drazen JM, Expression of concern: Bombardier et al., New England Journal of Medicine, December 29, 2005, Vol. 353, No 26, 2813-4.
