Jury finds Merck not liable over Vioxx

A bottle of prescription arthritis and pain medication Vioxx.

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey - In a major victory for Merck & Co, a jury decided the drugmaker provided adequate warning to doctors about health risks associated with its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx and did not commit consumer fraud in marketing the drug.

The nine-member jury in state court also found that Merck did not misrepresent, suppress or conceal information about increased risks of heart attack and stroke from the pain and arthritis medicine, sending Merck shares up 7 per cent.

The jury reached its decision after just over a full day of deliberation, following a 7-week trial in which lawyers for 60-year-old postal worker Frederick "Mike" Humeston claimed his heart attack was caused by Vioxx.

"We presented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence," said Jim Fitzpatrick, one of Merck's attorneys. "Frederick Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking Vioxx or not."

The case was being closely watched as a potential indicator of future Vioxx litigation as Merck is facing more than 6,500 lawsuits from former Vioxx users who claim to have been harmed by the drug.

"Merck would have been in a desperate situation if it had not won this case because a negative verdict would have encouraged waves of other plaintiffs to come forward," said Steve Brozak, an analyst with WBB Securities LLC.

INCREASED RISK

The plaintiff's side had accused Merck of hiding for years evidence that Vioxx caused increased heart risks in order to protect huge profits.

The drugmaker said it pulled the US$2.5 billion a year drug from the market last year as soon as it had clear data showing that long-term Vioxx use doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Humeston had only taken the drug for about two months for knee pain from an old war wound, while the study that led to the Vioxx withdrawal last year found increased heart risk only after 18 months of continuous use.

More than 2,000 of the cases against Merck were filed in New Jersey and Judge Carol Higbee, who presided over the Humeston case, is expected to oversee the bulk of them.

In the first Vioxx case to go to trial, a Texas jury in August found Merck liable for the death of a 59-year-old Vioxx user and awarded his widow US$253 million in damages. Merck is appealing that decision.

"There will be other Vioxx trials and we will vigorously defend them one by one over the coming years," Merck general counsel Kenneth Frazier said in a statement.

Before today's verdict, some analysts had speculated Merck could eventually have to pay up to US$50 billion to settle the growing numbers of Vioxx product-liability lawsuits.

Merck shares were up US$1.59, or 5.6 per cent, to US$30.00 on the New York Stock Exchange after climbing as high as US$30.50 just after the verdict was rendered.

- REUTERS