Merck accused of rushing Vioxx

Vioxx raised the risk of heart attack and stroke. Picture / Brett Phibbs

Drug company Merck & Co accelerated development of its Vioxx pain reliever because it calculated it could lose more than US$600 million ($925.49 million) a year if it did not beat competitors to market, a court heard yesterday.

David Anstice, Merck's former president of human health, told jurors in the latest Vioxx liability trial that Merck was concerned profits would fall if it did not compete effectively with Pfizer's similar arthritis drug Celebrex.

"We were working very diligently and aggressively to get Vioxx to market as quickly as possible," Anstice said in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey, under questioning from Mark Lanier, an attorney for a man who blames Vioxx for his 2003 heart attack.

In the second Vioxx case to be tried in New Jersey, two former long-term Vioxx users who claim the drug caused their heart attacks are suing Merck. The company is facing nearly 10,000 lawsuits related to the withdrawn pain drug.

Lanier, who last year won US$253 million for the widow of a Texas man who took Vioxx, accused Merck of cutting corners in the drug's development and seeking regulators' approval in half the normal time.

Lanier quoted a May 1999 memo from Merck's former top scientist Ed Scolnick saying that Merck would be a "completely different company" if it could not make Vioxx a commercial success. Merck needed Vioxx to replace the sales of six major drugs on which patents were set to expire, Lanier argued.

Merck officials calculated that Vioxx was worth US$889 million a year in sales if it reached the market first and only US$278 million if it followed Celebrex, the court heard.

Vioxx reached about US$2.5 billion in annual sales before Merck withdrew it in September 2004, after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who took it for at least 18 months.

Lanier accused Anstice and other Merck officials of "not telling the whole truth" about the heart risks of Vioxx because they needed to make it a commercial success.

The lawyer cited a letter from the US Food and Drug Administration attacking a May 2001 Merck press release which said Vioxx had a "favourable cardiovascular safety profile". The FDA called the claim "false and misleading". Merck negotiated with the FDA to ensure that warnings about cardiovascular risks were played down on the drug's labelling, Lanier told the court.

- REUTERS