Updated 27 June 2014.
First Vioxx trial
A jury decided that the first study of Vioxx, a case of causing death heard in a Texas court. By a vote of 10-2 August 19, 2005, the jury Merck (the manufacturer of Vioxx) held responsible and received $ 253.4 to the widow of Robert Ernst, an employee of Wal-Mart, who died of a heart attack while under Vioxx.
Damage
Before making a decision, consisted of seven men and five women for 10 hours over two days and a half advised the jury. The jury announced the price as follows:
- $ 450,000 for economic damages
- Anquish $ 24 million loss and mental Pet
- $ 229 million in punitive damages
The applicant would be sought 40400000 dollars in damages. According to MSNBC, the amount should be reduced to punitive damages under Texas law limits the state - limiting punitive damages double the amount of economic damages awarded (lost wages) and $ 750,000 over the amount of non-economic damages (loss of fear and companies). The applicant has the maximum in this case, after the reduction is in accordance with the law would be $ 1.65 million in punitive damages to be made of the total $ 26.1 million damage, which is not exceeded.
The process
Ernst died in 2001 of a heart attack. The paper analyzes the cause of the fatal heart attack. Was that Vioxx caused the heart attack or arrhythmia was secondary clogged arteries, as described in the autopsy report?
The pathologist who performed the autopsy said Ernst likely to cause fatal heart arrhythmias and heart attack later in the trial of a blood clot. The pathologist could not 100% certainty that it was a blood clot (not found at autopsy) or heart attack. The jury verdict shows that he believed that the theory that caused a blood clot was cardiac arrhythmia and Merck Vioxx and responsible.
The eyes of the nation focused on the first trial of Vioxx.
- What was the verdict sends message to all drug manufacturers and the administration of the United States Food and Drug?
- What would be the point of the 20 million people who used Vioxx before September 30, 2004 recall
- What impact would the judgment, if in the 4200 Vioxx lawsuit out of retirement?
Vioxx test
Not all Vioxx claims are wrongful death suits. The plaintiffs in the Vioxx trial starting next September 12 in New Jersey, is a man who has survived a heart attack in 2001, but the blame for Vioxx provoked the attack. The first federal Vioxx trial to begin until November 28.
Analysts suggest that if Merck continues to lose more requirements Vioxx, Vioxx study can multiply number exponentially. Analysts have also pointed out, Merck forced Vioxx trial rather than down they fight, one after the other, if the trend is that Merck lost. For now, it is not speculation, but the fact is that Ernst Merck will appeal the decision.
The problem with Vioxx
Vioxx was launched for the treatment of arthritis in the United States in 1999 and has been in 80 countries, marketed and used worldwide by 84 million people.
The decision to withdraw Vioxx, followed by a three-year study, as APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx), which was a study to determine the effect of Vioxx on the recurrence of neoplastic polyps of the large bowel in patients known with a history of colorectal adenomas . The study found that the increased risk of cardiovascular complications began 18 months after patients started taking Vioxx.
Merck was to hide data sent warning signals on heart disease risk to have.
The COX-2
Vioxx was the second in a promising new class of drugs called COX-2. The first class Celebrex was approved by the FDA in 1998 and is still sold. The third of the COX-2, Bextra was provided by the FDA in 2001 due to lack of sufficient data on the cardiovascular safety of long term use of Bextra, an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events in and set in April 2005 coronary artery bypass testing and coverage at short notice for severe and potentially fatal skin.
The Fallout
The recall of Vioxx caused concern for the entire class of COX-2 and caused the FDA come under observation, as well as older arthritis drugs called NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). NSAIDs are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation and relieve pain.
When the COX-2 were developed, they were classified as having gastro-intestinal profile was marketed safer. The popularity of the COX-2 greatly increased, ie, as the cardiac risk has become a problem.
The FDA changed the label of Celebrex and other NSAIDs, contain additional warnings. Like Vioxx, legal issues still to play.
Related Resources
Sources: MSNBC CNN Money, ABCNEWS.com, Merck Press <http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/corporate/2005_0819.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment