Healthy Skepticism Library item: 3838
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
Herper M, Langreth R.
New England Journal Reaffirms Merck Concerns
Forbes.com 2006 Feb 22
http://www.forbes.com/technology/sciences/2006/02/22/merck-vioxx-0222markets05.html
Notes:
Ralph Faggotter’s Comments:
The New England Journal of Medicine’s editors write: “The information we have indicates that the VIGOR article, because it did not contain relevant safety data available to the authors more than four months before publication, did not accurately reflect the potential for serious cardiovascular toxicity with rofecoxib [Vioxx].”
Full text:
New England Journal Reaffirms Merck Concerns
Matthew Herper and Robert Langreth 02.22.06, 12:30 PM ET
The New England Journal of Medicine has issued a second editorial re-affirming its concerns about a key scientific paper relating to Vioxx, the withdrawn arthritis drug from Merck.
A previous editorial caused controversy when it was published during a trial brought by a widow who claimed Vioxx caused her husband’s death. (See also: Merck’s Deleted Data). Merck (nyse: MRK – news – people ) has since won that case.
The Journal’s editors write: “The information we have indicates that the VIGOR article, because it did not contain relevant safety data available to the authors more than four months before publication, did not accurately reflect the potential for serious cardiovascular toxicity with rofecoxib [Vioxx].”
The authors of the paper who worked for Merck wrote one letter of response, published in the current New England Journal. Authors not affiliated with Merck wrote a separate response. One of the non-Merck authors previously told Forbes.com that their response had been submitted to the New England Journal in January.
The editorial and replies from the paper’s authors are both available on the New England Journal’s website.
