CONSUMER NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS  


Complain about a product or service

Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish
Automotive    Education    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Shopping    Travel   
NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

New York Sues Vioxx Maker over Drug’s Risks

Suit charges taxpayers were defrauded and endangered by Merck





September 20, 2007

Related Stories

First Vioxx Judgment Overturned On Appeal
Merck Agrees to Pay $58 Million to Settle Vioxx Claims
Researchers Claim Merck Cooked Vioxx Data
Common Pain Relievers May Boost Muscle Mass
More Painkillers Can Cause More Pain
Merck Caves, Agrees To $4.85 Billion Vioxx Settlement
New York Sues Vioxx Maker over Drug’s Risks
Merck Wins Vioxx Case In Illinois
Judge Rules Out Vioxx "Super" Class Action
FDA Critic Blasts Merck's Vioxx Replacement
Merck Loses New Orleans Vioxx Case
Merck Wins Latest Vioxx Suit
Vioxx Study Authors Backtrack On Claim
Older Painkillers May Increase Heart Attack Risk
More about Vioxx
---
Other NSAIDs
Bextra
Celebrex
Dangers of Other Vioxx-Type Drugs
Vioxx Alternatives
Aleve Ingredient Seen as Health Risk

New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have filed a joint lawsuit against the maker of Vioxx for allegedly misrepresenting the dangers the drug posed to its users.

The lawsuit seeks damages and civil penalties in addition to restitution for tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on Vioxx prescriptions, and marks the first time the state and city have brought a joint action to fight Medicaid fraud.

The civil suit accuses Merck & Co., Inc. of deliberately suppressing and concealing information about the seriousness of the cardiovascular risks associated with Vioxx. The suit claims many of those prescriptions would never have been written had doctors been properly informed.

“Merck's irresponsible and duplicitous conduct endangered the health of New Yorkers and wasted our tax dollars. As alleged in the complaint, even as evidence was piling up showing just how dangerous this drug was, Merck put profits above all else and put thousands at risk by continuing to push Vioxx inappropriately on doctors and patients,” Cuomo said.

“New Yorkers were put at risk, and taxpayers were stuck with the bill and that's unacceptable,” said Bloomberg. “Drug companies are on notice that engaging in this type of behavior just isn't worth it.”

Approved to treat the symptoms of osteoarthritis, dysmenorrhea, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine headaches and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, Vioxx quickly began to demonstrate adverse effects including increased incidence of heart attacks and strokes among its users.

In fact, the suit alleges, Merck's own research found that patients who took Vioxx had five times the risk of having a heart attack compared to those taking naproxen, a similar drug.

Further, the suit charges that court documents show Merck researchers discussed tailoring clinical trials of Vioxx to minimize negative outcomes. Internal emails proposed allowing test subjects to take aspirin during trials to prevent heart attacks, and suggested "excluding high-risk CV (i.e., cardiovascular) patients" from an initial study.

A later independent study corroborated these initial findings, estimating that Vioxx had contributed to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths among Americans who had taken the drug between 1999 and 2003, Cuomo said.

Nevertheless, Merck significantly ramped up its marketing operation in anticipation of Vioxx entering the market. In 1998, Merck added 700 representatives to its national sales force, engaging 3,000 in marketing the drug directly to doctors. According to the suit, these marketers were given explicit instructions on downplaying or distorting data when questioned about Vioxx's cardiovascular risks.

At the same time, Merck waged an aggressive direct-to-consumer advertising campaign that the suit says likewise misrepresented the safety of Vioxx.

As a result, Merck is accused of having caused New York doctors to prescribe Vioxx to patients whose cardiovascular conditions made them especially susceptible to the drug's negative effects. Had the doctors been adequately informed, the suit alleges, they would not have prescribed Vioxx.



Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.


Consumer News

July 9 2008

Recent Recalls & Safety Alerts

Print, mail, etc.




FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!


Knowledge is free.
Knowledge is power.



Back to the top |

Advertisement


Home | Rogues Gallery | Good Guys | Complaint Form | News | Recalls | Search | Video | FAQ |
Consumer Resources | Small Claims Guide | Lemon Law | Newsletter | Contact Us
Advertise With Us | Testimonials | Newsroom | RSS Feeds | Radio | Job Postings




Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.