Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15442
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: news
Rout M.
Doctor John Dickman hounded by Vioxx drug representatives
The Australian 2009 Apr 15
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25336186-23289,00.html
Full text:
THE Melbourne doctor who prescribed Vioxx to a man suing the manufacturer on the grounds the anti-arthritis drug allegedly triggered a heart attack, was visited 124 times in three years by drug company representatives spruiking the product.
Documents tendered to the Federal Court reveal US pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co bombarded general practitioner John Dickman with salesmen and samples of the drug, but failed to mention any links to increased risks of heart attacks and stroke.
Dr Dickman – a GP since 1972 – prescribed Vioxx to former navy officer Graeme Peterson for his arthritis and back pain until the drug was voluntarily recalled from sale in 2004 due to safety concerns.
Mr Peterson is the lead plaintiff in a class action against Merck and its Australian subsidiary Merck, Sharp and Dohme for compensation, claiming that Vioxx caused his heart attack in December 2003.
Vioxx was launched in 1999 and at its height was used by 80 million people worldwide, because it did not cause stomach problems as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs.
It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in October 2004 after concerns were raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes.
Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion but made no admission of guilt. The company is fighting the class action in Australia.
In his witness statement tendered to the Federal Court last week and obtained by The Australian yesterday, Dr Dickman said he was visited by sales representatives from Merck on multiple occasions at his shared practice in Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs.
“I did meet frequently with sales representatives who discussed Vioxx,” he said in his statement. “A review of records provided to me by lawyers for Mr Peterson revealed that I met Merck sales representatives 124 times from February 1, 2000 until Mr Peterson’s myocardial infarction (heart attack) on December 8, 2003.”
Dr Dickman said the focus of these meetings were “primarily” on the safety of Vioxx.
But Dr Dickman said: “I don’t recall Merck sales representatives ever mentioning any cardio-vascular risks in relation to Vioxx in the course of our discussions. I recall after meeting with a Merck sales representative, I was confident about the safety of Vioxx.”
Dr Dickman said his “clear impression” at the time was that Vioxx and its rival drug Celebrex were the safest drugs on the market and it would have been “almost negligent” not to prescribe them.
He said he was never warned about the increased risk of heart attacks or strokes while he was prescribing the drug to Mr Peterson. Dr Dickman said that information would have affected his decision-making about prescribing the drug.
Dr Dickman’s witness statement also revealed that sales representatives from Merck dropped off scores of samples of Vioxx to his Towerhill Medical Centre practice in Frankston over the three-year period.
“In general, Merck topped up Towerhill’s supply of Vioxx samples on a monthly basis.”
Council for Mr Peterson, Julian Burnside, QC, previously told the court Merck knew about the potential harmful consequences of the drug before its release on the market.
He also alleged the company tried to play down research done in 2000, which found Vioxx did decrease stomach problems but caused more heart attacks compared with another anti-inflammatory drug.
“We say the evidence will show that Merck was plainly on notice that this was a potential problem right from the earliest days,” he said.
The trial resumes today.
