|
|
Vioxx Recall: The
international prescription drug company
Merck announced in September 2004 the worldwide
withdrawal of the arthritis medication Rofecoxib,
sold in most countries under the brand name
Vioxx, because a study showed an increased
risk of heart attack and stroke.
Vioxx
Trial: Patients
who have suffered injuries due to Vioxx
have filed litigation against Merck for
selling Vioxx even though Merck allegedly
was aware of Vioxx's dangerous
side effects. |
|
|
|
| |
|
Vioxx Lawsuit Information from
Nashville Vioxx Lawyers
|
|
| The
prescription drug Vioxx was developed, manufactured and
sold by Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck")
to over 20 million persons worldwide. Vioxx was prescribed
for relief of pain and inflammation (swelling and soreness)
of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, management of
short-term pain, treatment of menstrual pain, and treatment
of migraine headaches. |
| In lawsuits filed against Merck by Lieff Cabraser and
co-counsel, Vioxx patients allege that Merck misrepresented
the safety of Vioxx and negligently sold Vioxx as a safe
prescription medication when, in fact, Merck knew that
it was not safe and that Vioxx caused serious medical
problems, and, in certain patients, catastrophic injuries
and death. |
| Vioxx Federal Court Lawsuit |
| Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has been assigned to hear all pretrial proceedings in Vioxx lawsuits against Merck filed in federal court. To read the latest news on the federal lawsuits, please visit the official court website for MDL No. 1657, http://vioxx.laed.uscourts.gov/Default.htm. |
| Factual
Background on the Drug Vioxx |
| Vioxx
is the brand name of rofecoxib, a Cox-2 inhibitor. Cox-1
and Cox-2 inhibitors are members of a class of drugs known
as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ("NSAIDs")
used for pain relief. Vioxx contains cyclooxygenase 2
("Cox-2") inhibitory properties, that means
that it inhibits an enzyme to control pain. Generally,
NSAIDs prevent the formation of fatty acid cyclooxygenases,
certain enzymes, of which there are two known types ("Cox-1"
and "Cox-2"). |
| Vioxx,
unlike the other drugs in the class of NSAIDs, is generally
different from the other NSAIDs because it is solely a
Cox-2 inhibitor. And, Vioxx, unlike the other members
of the NSAIDs class, contributes to the aggregation of
blood platelets, and thereby contributes to hypertension
and clotting and can, in certain patients, cause catastrophic
adverse side effects such as myocardial infarctions (heart
attacks) which can be either full-blown or silent, ischemic
strokes, and deep vein thrombosis. |
| Specific
Allegations of Misconduct Against Merck |
| In the Vioxx lawsuits against Merck, plaintiffs allege
the following: |
- Merck
knew and had reason to know of serious adverse events
occurring in patients who took Vioxx at single dose
of 25 mg or at a double dose of 50 mg each
day for durations of time from five (5) days to eighteen
(18) months or more. Merck failed to advise the FDA,
the medical community, and the patients about these
dangerous side effects incident to Vioxx use.
- Vioxx
was promoted and advertised by Merck directly to consumers
and to medical care providers as a pain reliever,
similar to Ibuprofen and Aleve, but without any of
the known side effects. Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Celebrex
and the other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pain
relievers can, in certain patients, cause damage to
the mucus membrane of the gut with long term use.
Merck advertised, marketed and promoted Vioxx as a
safe alternative that would not have the same deleterious
and painful impact on the gut but was just as effective
for pain relief.
- Medical
care providers and consumers relied on Merck's
promise that Vioxx was a safe alternative, easy to
use, and perfect for long term use. As a result, Merck
sold millions of prescriptions of Vioxx worldwide
and in the United States.
- Signs
of Vioxx's risks of serious adverse events emerged
soon after the FDA approved Vioxx for sale on May 20,
1999. That year, Merck sponsored a clinical study
known as the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research
Study (the "VIGOR study") to obtain information
regarding clinically meaningful gastrointestinal events
and, purportedly, to develop a large controlled database
for overall safety assessment. At the conclusion of
the VIGOR study, it was reported that serious cardiovascular
events occurred in 101 patients who took Vioxx
as compared to 46 patients who took Naproxen, an over-the-counter
NSAID.
- As
a result of the VIGOR study, it was reported that
myocardial infarctions occurred in twenty (20) patients
in the Vioxx treatment group as opposed to only four
(4) patients in the Naproxen treatment group.
- Merck's
marketing strategy began in the 1990s. Merck began
to aggressively market and sell their product by falsely
misleading potential users such as the consumer Plaintiffs
about the products and by failing to protect the consumers
from serious dangers which Merck knew or should have
known would result from use of Vioxx.
- Merck
wildly and successfully blitz-marketed Vioxx in the
U.S. by undertaking an advertising campaign extolling
the virtues of Vioxx in order to induce widespread
use of Vioxx. This direct-to-consumer advertising
campaign consisted of advertisements, promotional
literature to be placed in the offices of doctors
and other health care providers, HMOs, and promotional
materials provided directly to potential Vioxx users
themselves.
- The
advertising campaign as a whole sought to create the
image, impression and belief that the use of Vioxx
was safe for adults, had fewer side-effects and adverse
reactions than other pain relief medications and would
not interfere with daily life, even though Merck knew
that these representations were false. Furthermore,
Merck had no reasonable grounds to believe that any
of these representations were true.
- Merck
purposefully misrepresented, understated and otherwise
downplayed the serious health hazards and risks associated
with long-term Vioxx use -- exactly that for
which Vioxx was most often prescribed.
- As
a result of Merck's advertising and marketing
efforts, and the misrepresentations concerning Vioxx,
Vioxx continued to be pervasively prescribed throughout
the U.S. until its market withdrawal.
- If
Plaintiffs had known the risks and dangers associated
with Vioxx, Plaintiffs would never have taken Vioxx
and consequently would never had been threatened by
and subject to its catastrophic side effects.
|
| Lieff
Cabraser: Experienced Personal Injury Attorneys |
| Founded in 1972, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is an over fifty attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and
Nashville. For the last five years, the National
Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one
of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in America. |
| For our personal injury cases, we bring a team of experienced
lawyers. Each client is assigned an individual attorney.
In addition, we have on staff multiple nurses, legal assistants,
scientific analysts and case clerks to assist our lawyers. |
| We have been
contacted by thousands of Vioxx drug patients nationwide
as part of the Vioxx litigation. We have represented
patients injured by prescription drugs with dangerous,
undisclosed side effects or by defective medical devices
throughout Tennessee, including residents of
the following cities: Ardmore, Chattanooga, Clarksville,
Cookeville, Dover, Erwin, Fayetteville, Flintsville,
Franklin, Gellatin, Greenback, Hermitage, Hixson, Kingston,
Lebanon, Martin, Memphis, Millington, Murfreesboro, Nashville,
Newport, Old Hickory, Pleasant Shade, Sewanee, and Smyrna. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Trademark Notice |
| "Vioxx" is
a registered trademark of Merck. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP is in no way affiliated with Merck, and the Vioxx
trademark is used solely for informational purposes. |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2007 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP |
| |
|
|
Merck
Agrees to Resolve U.S. VIOXX® Product
Liability Lawsuits
November 9, 2007
Merck & Co., Inc.
announced that
it has entered into
an agreement to resolve
state and federal myocardial
infarction (MI) and
ischemic stroke claims
already filed against
the Company in the
United States. More... |
|
|
|
|