Vioxx user already had heart problems, court hears
Last Updated: 2006-07-12 13:00:32 -0400 (Reuters Health)
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (Reuters) - A lawyer for Merck & Co. told a jury on Tuesday that a 68-year-old New Jersey woman's previous health problems caused her heart attack, not their painkiller drug Vioxx.
"For someone like Mrs. (Elaine) 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.
Sullivan reminded the five men and two women on the jury that Doherty led a sedentary life, was obese, suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol and had a family history of heart disease. All of these contributed to her January 2004 heart attack.
But Doherty's lawyer James Pettit argued that his client had lost about 100 pounds, how blood pressure and cholesterol levels had fallen and that it was only "After she got on Vioxx (that) she was a heart attack waiting to happen."
Pettit, like plaintiffs' attorneys in earlier Vioxx trials, accused Merck of putting profits before safety because it needed a blockbuster drug to replace other drugs whose patents were about to expire.
Vioxx annual sales exceeded $2.5 billion during its five years on the market. Merck withdrew the drug after it was shown to double the risk of heart attack among those taking it for more than 18 months.
The company's traditional emphasis on science was being overtaken by commerce, Pettit said. "Now it's not research and development, it's marketing, marketing, marketing," he said.
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 each one by one.
The company informed doctors, regulators and medical journals in 2000 after the study showed a far higher risk of heart attacks among patients taking Vioxx than those taking the standard painkiller naproxen.
Merck agreed at the time with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the information about Vioxx risks should be published in the precautions section of the drug's label.
Merck has won three of the six cases that have so far been decided in court. In April, another Atlantic City, N.J. jury awarded $13.5 million to John McDarby, 77, after finding that Vioxx contributed to his heart attack and Merck failed to warn of the drug's risks.
But the same jury concluded that Vioxx did not cause the heart attack of Thomas Cona, 60, whose suit was heard at the same time.
