Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17348
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
Merck to appeal after heart attack victim Graeme Peterson awarded $278,000
The Australian 2010 Mar 5
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/merck-to-appeal-after-heart-attack-victim-graeme-peterson-awarded-278000/story-e6frg97x-1225837276680
Full text:
THE blockbuster anti-athritis drug Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks and was not fit to be on the market for arthritis pain, a federal court judge has found.
In a landmark decision, Justice Christopher Jessup this morning awarded compensation of $278,000 plus interest to Graeme Peterson, who claimed the drug caused him to have a heart attack in 2003.
In Depth section: Vioxx Trial
Mr Peterson sued US pharmaceutical giant Merck claiming he was no longer able to work because of the heart attack.
“I have concluded that across a population the consumption of Vioxx about doubled the risk of heart attack,” Judge Jessup said.
“I have held that because Vioxx involved about a doubling of the risk of heart attack, it was not reasonably fit for the purpose of being used for the relief of arthritic pain.”
Mr Peterson, acting on behalf of every Australian who took the drug from its launch in 2001 to its voluntary recall in September 2004, claims that Vioxx contributed to his heart attack in December 2003.
He also alleged in the three-month trial held last year that Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, knew about the cardiovascular risks of the drug and covered it up and engaged in inappropriate marketing tactics.
It was the first civil trial against the pharmaceutical giant outside the US after Merck settled hundreds of lawsuits over Vioxx in the US for $US4.8 billion in late 2007 but did not admit any liability.
The Federal Court case heard allegations that Merck created a “hit list” of doctors critical of the drug who needed to be “neutralised”; trained sales representatives in a Men in Black-style workshop to overcome doctors’ concerns that Vioxx caused heart attacks; paid nurses to pore through patient records to find potential candidates for the drug; came up with “cunning plans” to promote the drug to doctors and even faked a medical journal promoting the company’s product.
Other evidence also included the production of educational videos hosted by television personality David Koch spruiking the drug to general practitioners; plans to give away $6 million worth of drug samples in one year; bombardment of doctors with hundreds of visits from sales representatives; wining and dining experts in the field; writing songs (“Go Vioxx, go Vioxx, go Vioxx!!!”) to Ricky Martin-style music to motivate sales staff; and setting up a patients’ loyalty program to ensure “compliance” to the drug.
During the trial, the pharmaceutical giant argued there was no direct medical way of proving its drug could have contributed to a heart attack and there is no marker that it did in Mr Peterson’s case.
It also said the marketing techniques were reasonable and based on all the available medical data the company had at the time.
Merck has announced that it will appeal the decision.
