When Did Merck Know Vioxx Was Deadly?
Study Finds Danger Signal in Early Merck Data; Merck Says Study Flawed
WebMD News Archive
Ross defends his team's methods as the best way to look for a safety signal.
He notes, for example, that if a patient on Vioxx died due to an accident, it
may very well have been a heart attack that led to the accident. And he points
to the fact that the heart/stroke risk of Vioxx is now a widely accepted
medical fact -- and that Merck's studies failed to detect this risk until some
20 million people had taken the drug.
Ross says the real message of the study is not to point fingers at Merck.
The point, he says, is that routine safety evaluations -- using all clinical
data, not just published data -- should be performed on all new drugs.
"What we are saying is this kind of study should be done routinely,
particularly when there is a known safety concern about a drug," Ross says.
"This safety monitoring is not rocket science. We would be protecting the
publics' health because we would be identifying risks earlier."
Federal law enacted since the Vioxx debacle now requires companies to
disclose clinical trial data to the public within 12 to 24 months of study
In late September, Merck settled more than 3,000 Vioxx lawsuits in a $4.85
billion settlement. That reversed a company policy of fighting each lawsuit one
at a time, even though the company has won most of these suits.