Second Trial Another Bitter Pill for Merck

[Guest guest]

Second Trial Another Bitter Pill for Merck

By JOHN CURRAN, Associated Press WriterSun Sep 18, 3:02 PM ET

 

 

 

For Merck & Co., its second trial over failed painkiller Vioxx is another bitter

pill. The beleaguered New Jersey pharmaceutical maker, already reeling from a

big loss in the first Vioxx case to go to trial, suffered a few setbacks last

week as the second one got under way.

 

Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee barred jurors from hearing about a Food and

Drug Administration memo earlier this year that said cardiovascular risks are

associated with Celebrex, Bextra, ibuprofen and naproxen — not just Vioxx.

Later, Higbee chastised Merck's lead attorney, Diane Sullivan, for casting

aspersions about lawyers in her opening statements, in violation of a pretrial

order.

 

Then came two doctors testifying on behalf of plaintiff Frederick " Mike "

Humeston, the 60-year-old postal worker whose 2001 heart attack is the crux of

the suit.

 

Humeston's personal physician, Dr. Gregory Lewer, told jurors Humeston was a

vital, active nonsmoker with no history of heart disease who was stricken two

months after he started taking the drug to relieve pain from an old war wound.

 

Sullivan told jurors a study that showed Vioxx users had increased risk of heart

attacks and strokes applied only to those who'd been taking it more than 18

months.

 

Humeston had just started taking it, according to Sullivan, who tried to pin the

blame for his heart attack on stress associated with an investigation by his

employer, the U.S. Postal Service, into whether his knee injury was as

debilitating as Lewer made it out to be in obtaining work-duty restrictions for

the Boise, Idaho, father of five.

 

Whether the seven-woman, three-man jury recognizes that distinction remains to

be seen. Last month, a jury awarded $253 million to the wife of a Texas man who

died after taking Vioxx for only eight months.

 

The first week of the New Jersey trial climaxed with dramatic testimony from

heart expert Dr. Benedict Lucchesi, who fought back tears as he reviewed the

texts of e-mail messages and other Merck communiques that discussed health risks

posed by Vioxx long before its launch in 1999.

 

" They're putting profits before lives, " Lucchesi told the jury.

 

When testimony resumes Monday, Merck's lawyers will get a chance to

cross-examine Lucchesi and try to undo some of the damage. But plaintiff's

attorney Chris Seeger plans to present more e-mails, from former Merck research

director Edward Scolnick, to bolster his contention that Merck knew of Vioxx's

dangers but forged ahead in a rush to beat rival Celebrex to market.

 

Also expected to testify is David Anstice, a Merck marketing executive, and —

via videotape — Dr. Alan Nies, who headed the Vioxx development team for Merck

before his 2002 retirement.

 

The drug, which was developed as an alternative to painkillers that frequently

caused stomach bleeding and other gastrointestinal ailments, was launched in

1999 and quickly became a huge hit with consumers. More than 20 million people

took it, running up sales of over $2 billion in 2003 alone.

 

Merck pulled it off shelves last September amid growing concern about the

incidence of heart attacks and strokes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information

contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or

redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

 

 

 

" When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, we will have

peace. "

Jimi Hendrix

 

on-text portions of this message have been removed]