According to Raymond Gilmartin, ex-CEO of Merck & Co., Merck did not withhold information about Vioxx's heart attack risks. After awarding a plaintiff $4.5 million, a New Jersey jury has to decide whether Merck should pay punitive damages.
Gilmartin took the stand and said 'The answer is definitely no.' after the plaintiff's lawyer, Mr. Lanier, asked him whether Merck had withheld or misrepresented data. According to Gilmartin, preliminary data gave no indication of a significant link between Vioxx and heart attack risk (or cardiovascular risk).
When Lanier referred to a 2000 study which showed Vioxx consumption made it five times more likely a patient would have a heart attack than Naproxen (another drug it was being compared to), Gilmartin said Naproxen was thought of as a drug that might provide cardiovascular protection - so obviously, the difference would be great (the meaning being, that if Vioxx had been compared to a drug with neutral effect on the heart, the difference in heart attack risk would not have been so great).
Gilmartin later explained that this was the reason the study which compared Vioxx to Naproxen was never sent to the FDA because Naproxen, being a drug that might protect the heart, would skewer the study. So they left it out of the report to the FDA.
Gilmartin was CEO and Chairman of Merck from 1994 to 2005. He was at the helm when Vioxx was launched, and also when it was withdrawn. In New Jersey punitive damages cannot total more than five times the amount awarded in compensation - so, the punitive damages will not be more than ?22.5 million.
Written by:
View drug information on Vioxx.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий