The $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement announced by Merck & Co. in 2007 will include payments to the families of over 3,000 people who died of a heart attack or stroke while taking the now-withdrawn painkiller, according to a report on Bloomberg.com.

Vioxx was approved for use in 1999, and quickly became a blockbuster for Merck, with annual sales of $2.5 billion. However, the painkiller was pulled off the market in 2004 after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. (more…)

In yet another recent legal settlement, Merck & Co has agreed to pay $80 million to settle 190 claims concerning its recalled pain medication, Vioxx, reports Reuters. In a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, reported Reuters, Merck said it recorded an “$80 million charge” in this year’s second quarter for “the settlement with third-party payors,” including “unions and health insurance plans.”

Last month, we wrote that another settlement was reached in a lawsuit allegedly involving the death of John Henderson, according to the Madison St. Clair Record. Henderson’s wife, Norma Henderson, and her attorneys agreed to accept the proposed settlement in excess of $200,000, said the Madison St. Clair Record. The lawsuit was originally filed against the drug giant on July 9, 2003 and alleged that Vioxx was responsible for the death of Mr. Henderson. (more…)

In the ongoing legal activity surrounding Merck & Company’s recalled blockbuster pain medication, Vioxx, another settlement has been reached in a lawsuit allegedly involving the death of John Henderson, the Madison St. Clair Record just reported.

Henderson’s wife, Norma Henderson, and her attorneys agreed to accept the proposed settlement in excess of $200,000, said the Madison St. Clair Record. The lawsuit was originally filed against the drug giant on July 9, 2003 and alleged that Vioxx was responsible for the death of Mr. Henderson, the Madison St. Clair Record explained. (more…)

In the continuing legal problems over painkiller Vioxx, a new lawsuit has emerged in the United States naming a number of federal lawmakers as defendants. The lawsuit was filed this week and names U.S. democratic senators Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Russell Feingold (Wisconsin), and Edward Kennedy (Massachusetts), said Highlands Today.

Vioxx was approved for use in the U.S. in 1999, quickly becoming a blockbuster for drug maker, Merck & Co., with annual sales of $2.5 billion. Vioxx was pulled off the market in 2004 after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to over 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. Vioxx was also recalled in over 80 countries that year. The Vioxx recall spawned thousands of product liability lawsuits and, in 2007, Merck agreed to settle most U.S. Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion. Merck continues to defend lawsuits in other countries, including Australia. (more…)

The Vioxx trial that is ongoing in Australia has shed new light on the questionable tactics Merck & Co. used to market its dangerous painkiller. Now, according to The Australian, it seems Merck orchestrated “patient loyalty programs” that, publicly, seemed to be about increasing “quality of life.” Privately, reported The Australian, Merck was only seeking improved “patient compliance” and retention while doubling “sales potential.”

Vioxx was approved for use in the U.S. in 1999, quickly becoming a blockbuster for Merck, with annual sales of $2.5 billion. Vioxx was pulled off the market in 2004 after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to over 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. Vioxx was also recalled in more than 80 countries that year. The Vioxx recall spawned thousands of product liability lawsuits and, in 2007, Merck agreed to settle most U.S. Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion. But, Merck continues to defend lawsuits in other countries, including Australia.

The Australian cited internal court documents that show Merck’s Australian arm—Merck, Sharp and Dohme—planned a “patient support program” when it launched Vioxx to increase “patient retention.” Citing marketing briefs presented in court, The Australian said the drug giant presented a patient program in 2002 developed to calm consumer concern about Vioxx safety and sought to “block” the launch of a rival anti-arthritis drug.

Graeme Peterson is the lead plaintiff on the civil case brought on behalf of more than 1000 Australians. Peterson blames Vioxx for his heart attack in December 2003 and alleges Merck knew about Vioxx’s heart risks, yet minimized them before it withdrew the drug in 2004, said The Australian. We recently wrote, citing The Australian, that leading American cardiologist Douglas Zipes testified that Vioxx played a “substantial contributing role” to the heart attack suffered by Peterson and “strongly believed” Vioxx was a significant contributing factor.

Richard Harper, from Melbourne’s Monash University told the court that Vioxx “exacerbated” Peterson’s risk factors saying, “I believed Vioxx doubled his risk of heart attack. It increased the risk of someone who was already at a high risk,” quoted The Australian last month. One of the claims being made in the large class action is that Merck was aware of Vioxx’s cardiovascular risks long before it withdrew the drug.

Although Merck continues to fight the class action, a 2002 patient program, entitled “Vioxx—A Step in the Right Direction” revealed that while the program’s “external” objectives included myriad forms of patient education, internally, the objectives differed sharply and were not as altruistic as Merck would have us believe. For instance, said The Australian, there is documentation regarding several significant challenges faced over Vioxx’s cost and safety. To resolve this, according to one internal document, the plan stated, “Increase the average treatment time from three months to six months, effectively doubling sales potential for these patients,” and “Assist in blocking the launch of valdecoxib (rival drug) by taking up as many Vioxx patients as possible prior to the Bextra launch and holding them for the launch period,” quoted The Australian.

The document also discussed targeting General Practitioner (GP) physicians to recommend Vioxx to patients, who would then be provided with a welcome packet and the potential for a “prize of nominal value.” The document also stated that, “The patient is then asked to commit to remaining on therapy for the duration of the program unless they experience AEs (adverse events) etc in order to realistically achieve their goal,” quoted The Australian.

The Vioxx

trial that is ongoing in Australia and which has shed new light on the questionable tactics Merck & Co. used to market the dangerous painkiller has, said the Australian, involved a leading American cardiologist who testified that Vioxx played a “substantial contributing role” to the heart attack suffered by a 58-year-old Australian.

Vioxx was approved for use in the U.S. in 1999 and quickly became a blockbuster for Merck, with annual sales of $2.5 billion. The painkiller was pulled off the market in 2004 after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. Vioxx was also recalled in more than 80 countries that year. The Vioxx recall spawned thousands of product liability lawsuits and in 2007, Merck agreed to settle most U.S. Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion. But, Merck continues to defend lawsuits in other countries, including Australia.

According to Douglas Zipes’— a cardiologist from Indiana University—testimony, he “strongly believed” Vioxx was a significant contributing factor in Graeme Peterson’s –a 58-year-old former Australian Navy Officer—2003 heart attack. The class action is against U.S. Vioxx manufacturer Merck & Co as well as its Australian subsidiary Merck, Sharp and Dohme, said The Australian. Richard Harper, from Melbourne’s Monash University told the court that Vioxx “exacerbated” Peterson’s risk factors saying, “I believed Vioxx doubled his risk of heart attack. It increased the risk of someone who was already at a high risk,” quoted The Australian. The Australian reported that other experts found no so-call physical “footprint” to prove Vioxx caused the heart attack, citing other risk factors. One of the claims being made in the large class action is that Merck was aware of Vioxx’s cardiovascular risks long before the drug’s withdrawal from the market.

Meanwhile, recently the Australian Vioxx trial also revealed that Merck paid so-called nurses to look through medical records in search of potential Vioxx patients, said BNET in a prior report. According to the Australian court, the nurses accessed patient records without obtaining physician permission in the hopes of garnering 100 patients per doctor, explained BNET. Patients were sought who were not taking, but were seen as potential candidates to take, Vioxx, said BNET, citing a prior The Australian report.

It seems, said The Australian, that the drug giant urged pharmacists to recommend Vioxx to those patients who were prescribed paracetemol by providing them with free copies of the Merck manual, according to BNET. Merck also apparently put on a year-end “skit” in which Merck sales reps mocked the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Journal published an article discussing Vioxx and issues with its cardiovascular side effects, said BNET.

News of the skit is somewhat ironic, especially given recent reports on one of the most shocking tactics used by Merck to push Vioxx in Australia: The use of a fake medical journal. The journal, published by Elsevier, was offering it like other peer-reviewed medical journals, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles, all of which presented Merck products, including Vioxx, in a favorable light. According to an earlier New York Times piece, Merck published several issues of the “journal,” entitled Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, between 2002 and 2005, presenting the journal to doctors as a real medical journal.

The ongoing Vioxx trial in Australia has just revealed that Merck, the maker of the controversial drug, paid so-called nurses to look through medical records in search of potential Vioxx patients, BNET reports. According to the Australian court, the nurses accessed patient records without obtaining physician permission in the hopes of garnering 100 patients per doctor, explained BNET. Patients were sought who were not taking, but were seen as potential candidates to take Vioxx, said BNET, citing The Australian.

Vioxx was approved for use in the U.S. in 1999, and quickly became a blockbuster for Merck, with annual sales of $2.5 billion. The painkiller was pulled off the market in 2004 after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. Vioxx was also recalled in more than 80 countries that year.

It seems, said The Australian, that the drug giant urged pharmacists to recommend Vioxx to those patients who were prescribed paracetemol by providing them with free copies of the Merck manual, according to BNET. Merck also apparently put on a year-end “skit” in which Merck sales reps mocked the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Journal published an article discussing Vioxx and issues with its cardiovascular side effects, said BNET.

News of the skit is somewhat ironic, especially given recent reports on one of the most shocking tactics used by Merck to push Vioxx in Australia: The use of a fake medical journal. The journal, published by Elsevier, was offering it like other peer-reviewed medical journals, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles, all of which presented Merck products, including Vioxx, in a favorable light. According to an earlier New York Times piece, Merck published several issues of the “journal,” entitled Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, between 2002 and 2005, presenting it to doctors as a real medical journal.

The New York Time also reported that the Australian trial revealed that Vioxx sales reps in that country were given a training manual called the “Vioxx Objection Handling Module.” This manual schooled reps in methods of deflecting doctors’ questions about the drug’s side effects, and easing their concerns. According to The New York Times, Merck began distributing the manual in 2001 as studies began to emerge that pointed to the drug’s heart and stroke risks.

The Australian trial has also demonstrated how disillusioned doctors felt when they learned Merck had tried to obscure Vioxx’s safety issues. For example, in an e-mail message dated October 2, 2004, Dr. James V. Bertouch, an Australian physician who had been a member of Merck’s arthritis advisory board, told fellow board member that he felt “like the proverbial mushroom” and asked colleagues how they felt being kept in the dark about Vioxx.

The Vioxx recall spawned thousands of product liability lawsuits. In 2007, Merck agreed to settle most U.S. Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion; however, Merck continues to defend lawsuits in other countries, including Australia.

A Vioxx trial in Australia has shed new light on the questionable tactics Merck & Co. used to market the dangerous painkiller. The strategies, detailed in an article published by The New York Times, will not surprise anyone who has followed this blog’s Vioxx coverage.

Vioxx was approved for use in the U.S. in 1999, and quickly became a blockbuster for Merck, with annual sales of $2.5 billion. The painkiller was pulled off the market in 2004 after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. Vioxx was also recalled in more than 80 countries that year.

The Vioxx recall spawned thousands of product liability lawsuits. In 2007, Merck agreed to settle most U.S. Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion. But the company is still defending lawsuits in other countries, including Australia.

We’ve already reported on one of the most shocking tactics used by Merck to push Vioxx in Australia – the use of a fake medical journal. The journal, published by Elsevier, looked like other peer-reviewed medical journals, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles – all of which presented Merck products, including Vioxx, in a favorable light.

According to the New York Times, Merck published several issues of the “journal”, entitled Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, between 2002 and 2005. It was presented to doctors as a real medical journal.

The New York Time is also reporting that the Australian trial has revealed that Vioxx sales reps in that country were given a training manual called the “Vioxx Objection Handling Module.” This manual schooled reps in methods of deflecting doctors’ questions about the drug’s side effects, and easing their concerns. According to The New York Times, Merck began distributing the manual in 2001 as studies began to emerge that pointed to the drug’s heart and stroke risks.

The Australian trial has also demonstrated how disillusioned doctors felt when they learned Merck had tried to obscure Vioxx’s safety issues. For example, in an e-mail message dated Oct. 2, 2004, Dr. James V. Bertouch, an Australian physician who had been a member of Merck’s arthritis advisory board, told fellow board member that he felt “like the proverbial mushroom” and asked colleagues how they felt being kept in the dark about Vioxx.

In the most recent debacle over Merck’s Vioxx, Merck is accused of hiring a ghostwriter for a Circulation paper likely written to minimize issues linked to Vioxx’s safety. The Heart.org said well-known cardiologist Dr. Marvin Konstam of Tufts University Medical Center agreed to act as lead author in 2001. Claims just made in an Australian court allege the paper was written by Merck’s in-house scientists, a conflict of interest.

It is believed the Merck paper was developed in defense of an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that broke with news that Vioxx increased cardiovascular side effects, said The Heart.org. It took until 2004 for Vioxx to be globally withdrawn. “During the three years after publication of the Konstam manuscript, millions of patients around the world were prescribed rofecoxib by physicians who believed that the drug was safe. In this case, a ghostwritten article caused great harm to the public health,” said Dr. Steve Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic and author of the JAMA paper, quoted The Heart.org. (more…)

Vioxx is the target of a federal probe, Merck & Co. announced yesterday. According to Reuters, the grand jury investigation involves Merck’s research, marketing and selling activities regarding Vioxx, which was pulled from the market in 2004.

Vioxx was approved for use in 1999, and quickly became a blockbuster for Merck, with annual sales of $2.5 billion. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) ordered the painkiller off the market after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. (more…)