Merck Wins Another Vioxx Trial
By HEATHER WON TESORIERO
December 14, 2006; Page B10
Merck & Co. prevailed in the 12th Vioxx trial since the painkiller was pulled from the market, convincing a New Orleans jury that it shouldn't be held responsible for a heart attack suffered by a man who took the drug.
Anthony Dedrick, 51 years old, of Wayne County, Tenn., had blamed Merck for his 2003 heart attack after he took Vioxx for six months to treat arthritis. His Vioxx usage took place after Merck updated the label to include precautions about cardiovascular risks. The drug maker argued that Mr. Dedrick had a number of risks for a heart attack, including diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol and family history. Mr. Dedrick has been smoking for 35 years and had a history of alcohol and cocaine abuse.
After deliberating for about an hour and a half, the jury of four women and three men found that Merck adequately warned Mr. Dedrick's physician of Vioxx's risks and that the drug didn't cause the plaintiff's heart attack.
"The jury determined that Merck acted appropriately in the development and marketing of Vioxx and that Vioxx did not substantially contribute to Mr. Dedrick's heart attack," said Phil Beck, Merck's outside defense lawyer in the case.
Plaintiffs' attorney Andy Birchfield said, "We knew it was a very difficult case. It was challenging from a number of perspectives."
The Whitehouse Station, N.J., company withdrew Vioxx in September 2004 after a study linked the drug to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck now faces a raft of some 27,200 lawsuits and has said it will fight each case.
Merck's win gives the company a slight edge on the trial score card. The company has won seven trials and has lost four. A New Jersey judge tossed out an early win in Merck's favor.
Over the past year, Judge Eldon E. Fallon, who presides over the federal Vioxx litigation, heard five bellwether cases, which were selected through a process involving both parties. Merck won four of these five federal cases, which were meant to be instructive to both sides about how they might fare in a negotiated settlement. Judge Fallon has said he would like the parties to meet following these trials and gauge where the litigation stands.
The biggest hurdle that has emerged for plaintiffs is convincing a jury that Vioxx caused an injury in people with a number of cardiovascular risk factors.
"The difficulty of proving its role is challenging," Mr. Birchfield said. "We will learn how to present the evidence better."
There are currently two other Vioxx trials taking place in state courts in Alabama and California. |
