The Vioxx recall was controversial with accusations that the drug company Merck & Co. could have pulled the drug years be fore after its own study indicated risk of heart attack and stroke. Merck has defended its actions regarding their blockbuster drug Vioxx. Vioxx attorneys were immediately contacted following the removal announcement for side effects now believed to have been the result of taking the drug. An estimated 20 million people in the U.S. alone have used Vioxx. A Vioxx attorney who is experienced in matters like drug recalls understands the complexity of the se cases and has access to the many resources the drug industry is able to retain and must be met with powerful evidence and testimony.
Vioxx attorneys have seized an FDA warning letter dated September 17, 2001 that was sent to Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin. The Vioxx lawsuits that ensue may focus on the 2001 FDA warning, according to some predictions. Included in the warning letter is the agency saying Merck engaged in “a promotional campaign for Vioxx that minimizes the potentially serious cardiovascular finding that were observed.” The letter was sent after Merck completed its VIGOR study, which it started in January 1999 and made preliminary results available in March 2000.
The Vioxx attorneys arguing cases are expected to use the VIGOR study results and Merck’s reaction to them. The test was designed to see if Vioxx causes fewer gastrointestinal problems than naproxen, a drug that belongs to the same class of drugs as ibuprofen and aspirin. Upon Vioxx approval, the FDA still required Vioxx labeling to include the same digestive warning s that it requires on naproxen , despite claims that Vioxx was associated to a lower risk of the side effect. While VIGOR did show Vioxx had fewer gastrointestinal problems than naproxen, the unexpected discovery was that a person taking Vioxx had a higher risk of heart attack and stroke than someone taking naproxen.
Even though coronary artery blockage is one of the leading killers in the U.S., Vioxx attorneys are sure to argue Merck’s attempts to downplay what the VIGOR study revealed. Merck indicated in a March 2000 press release that the VIGOR study showed there were significantly fewer heart attack and strokes observed in naproxen patients, which the company attributed to naproxen’s ability to protect against them instead of Vioxx’s ability to cause them. The FDA letter seized by Vioxx attorneys accuses Merck of minimizing unfavorable findings , and the agency ordered the company to send doctors a letter in September 2001 “to correct false or misleading impressions and information” the company had made.
In April 2002, the FDA followed its own advisory panel’s recommendations, requiring Merck to implement a Vioxx labeling change warning of the possible link to heart attacks and strokes. Following the Vioxx recall, the Merck president Peter Kim was asked why a Vioxx recall was not made after the VIGOR study four and a half years prior to the actual recall, and Kim claimed the VIGOR study did not allow Merck to make a decision because a placebo was not used. The latest 3-year Merck-sponsored study was cut short after 18 months using a placebo , when the company could no longer deny potentially deadly effects were being risked by taking Vioxx.
After the Vioxx recall announcement, Vioxx attorneys nationwide were contacted. Merck has said it has “strong and meritorious” defenses in the case filed against it, but some analysts predict Vioxx litigation could become very costly for the drugmaker
For more information on the Vioxx recall, please contact us to confer with a Vioxx attorney.
Technorati tags: vioxx vioxx attorney vioxx lawyer vioxx lawyers Ron Paul ron paul Galilea Montijo galilea montijo murray waas RailsConf railsconf youtube gtd myspace popfly paris hilton bebo mario lopez immigration wolfowitz aquantive joost
No comments:
Post a Comment