To see what people are saying about these Merck® Drugs please view our Fourm.
Common Misspellings:
rofecoxib (oral)(row feh COCK sib)
Vioxx® is a popular arthritis treatment drug, that has been voluntarily recalled by its manufacturer, Merck. Vioxx® is one of the newer arthritis treatment drug, in a class of drugs called the COX-2 Inhibitors. These medications include drugs such as Vioxx®, Celebrex®, and Bextra®. The medications were developed to have the same benefits as Motrin and Ibuprofen, without the potential stomach-related side effects of these particular drugs.
Vioxx® was voluntarily recalled by Merck because of the potential cardiac risks that were found in a recent study of this drug. In this study, patients who regularly took Vioxx® for a period of 18 months or longer, showed signs of an increased risk of cardiac events, such as a heart attack.
You should be cautious about taking Vioxx® if you:
The most important step for patients currently taking Vioxx® is to discuss their health and history with their physician. Your doctor is hopefully aware of the potential health risks associated with Vioxx®, and other Cox-2 inhibitors and may advise using low-dose aspirin or some other alternative in order to minimize the risk of heart disease from these drugs. Patients must educate themselves on the potential risks, and, if they experience any side effects associated with Vioxx® and other Cox-2 inhibitors, must immediately contact their doctor.
Always consult a physician before taking any drugs including Vioxx®.
Very rare and dangerous side effects include: abdominal pain, nausea, tenderness, blood in your vomit, bloody, black, or tarry stools, fatigue, unexplained weight gain, swelling or water retention, a rash, itching; yellowing of your skin or eyes, any flu-like symptoms, or uncommon bruising or bleeding. If you experience any of these, notify your doctor immediately, and discontinue use of Vioxx®.
Other less serious side effects of Vioxx® can include: dizziness, fatigue or weakness, or diarrhea. Although these side effects are mild, you should notify your doctor.
Side effects are difficult to predict. Some side effects are normal, while other side effects are not. Always discuss any side effects you are experiencing while taking any prescription medication, including Vioxx®, with your doctor.
There is some controversy surrounding the FDA and the recall of Vioxx®. Some say the FDA should have acted more quickly in its effort to pressure Merck® into recalling the drug. Others say that it was difficult for the FDA to make a link between the information they had about Vioxx® and the various health problems some were having. The FDA says it will closely monitor other drugs in the same class, like Celebrex®, and Bextra®. Although Celebrex®, and Bextra® and not shown the same warning signs as Vioxx®, the FDA will still keep an eye on them. Whether or not the FDA acted quickly enough, Vioxx® has been recalled. It was officially recalled on Sept. 30, 2004 .
Now that the recall has happened, lawsuits are the next step for many. As of right now there have been more than 13,000 product liability lawsuits filed. Merck® has vowed to fight theses lawsuits. It has set aside some $970 million, and has vowed to defend Vioxx® is all lawsuits. Who will be the winner of the lawsuits? Only time will tell.
WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J., Feb. 17, 2006 - Merck & Co., Inc. today said it is pleased that a federal court jury in New Orleans returned a defense verdict in Plunkett v. Merck by rejecting a claim that short-term use of VIOXX played a role in the 2001 death of a Florida man.
"The jury's decision confirms that there is no medical or scientific evidence showing short-term use of VIOXX increases the risk of heart attack and contributed in any way to the unfortunate death of Richard Irvin," said Philip Beck, of the law firm of Bartlit Beck, Merck's lead trial lawyer in the case. "Mr. Irvin only took VIOXX for less than a month. He suffered multiple long-standing risk factors for a heart attack including partially clogged arteries. Mr. Irvin would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking VIOXX or not."
"This is a satisfying jury verdict for Merck," said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. "Juries in federal and state courts have now rejected unfounded theories about short-term use of VIOXX and have decided the company acted responsibly in properly disclosing data to the FDA and the medical community."
The lawsuit was originally filed in Palm Beach County , Fla. on May 14, 2003 , by Mr. Irvin's surviving spouse, Evelyn Irvin Plunkett. The case was re-filed in the MultiDistrict Litigation as case number 05-4046 in 2005.
"Like all VIOXX cases, this one was about individual causation and that's why we are dealing with these cases one by one as they come to trial," said Mr. Frazier. "The fact remains that heart attacks are a major cause of death in the United States and have multiple causes. It will be difficult for plaintiffs to prove that VIOXX was the cause of any individual's heart attack."
Merck is represented in the Plunkett case by Philip Beck and Tarek Ismail of Bartlit Beck of Chicago .
This article was originally published by http://www.merck.com/newsroom
California Jury Rejects Claim by California Man Who Blamed Heart Attack on Sporadic VIOXX Use
WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J., Aug. 2, 2006 - A jury in Los Angeles today returned a defense verdict in the first California VIOXX case to go to trial, Grossberg v. Merck.
"We are pleased that a state court jury in Los Angeles rejected the claims of a California man who blamed his 2001 heart attack on his intermittent, sporadic use of VIOXX," said Thomas Yoo of Reed Smith, a member of the defense team in Grossberg v. Merck. "The verdict is consistent with what we have always said. Merck acted appropriately in providing information to the medical, scientific and regulatory communities. We firmly believed that VIOXX was not the cause of this heart attack because the data do not support that infrequent, sporadic use of VIOXX contributes to heart attacks. At the end of the day, the fact remains that the plaintiff was at high risk for a heart attack regardless of whether he was taking VIOXX."
"Merck is pleased with the jury verdict," said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. "Today's outcome demonstrates, again, why we will defend these cases on a case-by-case basis."
It is the second time in the past month that plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their bid to blame their heart attack on their VIOXX use.
According to the evidence presented at trial, Stewart Grossberg of Northridge , Calif. , took VIOXX from 1999 on a sporadic and intermittent basis before his heart attack at 66 on Sept. 18, 2001 . He then continued to use VIOXX intermittently until about one month before Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug from market in September 2004.
During the trial, Merck produced evidence showing that Mr. Grossberg has high cholesterol levels, atherosclerosis and a family history of cardiac problems.
In addition, Merck presented evidence that it carefully studied VIOXX before and after receiving approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and consistently made the results of studies available to the FDA and the medical community.
Merck was represented by Ralph A. Campillo of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold in Los Angeles , Tarek Ismail of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott in Chicago , and Thomas Yoo of Reed Smith in Los Angeles . Bartlit Beck was the lead counsel in the first federal VIOXX case, which Merck won.
This is the eighth case that has gone to trial. In July, Merck won a case brought by Elaine Doherty, a New Jersey woman who claimed her heart attack was caused by her nearly three years of VIOXX use. Prior to that, in April, a New Jersey jury rendered a split verdict in a case involving two plaintiffs. The jurors rejected a claim by Thomas Cona that VIOXX contributed to his heart attack, and found in favor of John McDarby. Merck plans to appeal the portions of the verdict that it lost.
In February, Merck won the first federal case in New Orleans when jurors in Plunkett v. Merck rejected claims that VIOXX caused the heart attack of a Florida man. In November 2005, jurors in New Jersey ruled in favor of Merck, in Humeston v. Merck, the first N.J. case.
Finally, Merck intends to appeal last August's plaintiff verdict in a Texas state court in Ernst v. Merck, as well as April's plaintiff verdict in a Texas state court in Garza v. Merck.
A ninth case is under way in federal court in New Orleans , Barnett v. Merck.
Source: http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/corporate/2006_0802.html
Always check back here for more information about the recall, lawsuits, and more news about Vioxx®.
Since the recall, more than 13,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed. Should you get a lawyer or attorney? It is difficult to say. If you have taken Vioxx®, and feel that you have been harmed by the drug, then you may want to talk to an attorney or a lawyer. A lawyer or attorney can tell you if you should file a lawsuit. When choosing a lawyer or attorney, it is best to choose one with experience in the area. Your lawyer or attorney should have some product liability experience, preferably with prescription drugs. Ask your lawyer or attorney what kind of experience they have, and whether or not they feel you should file a lawsuit.