What's The Latest In Vioxx

Are you a Vioxx victim? Here’s something you have to know.

Many people from all over the world were victimized by this drug. The Vioxx was produced by Merck and Pharmacia. It comes in liquid and pill form. It is a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that is used to relieve osteoarthritis, rheumatic arthritis and acute pain. NSAID is referred to as drug with analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory effects. It reduces pain, fever and inflammation, such as muscle strain or sprain. NSAID is sometimes called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent or NSAIA. Aspirin and ibuprofen belongs to this class.

The Vioxx also contains cyclooxygenase, an enzyme that controls inflammation. It belongs to the COX-2 inhibitors. COX-2 has been good cure for arthritis pain, which afflicts tens of millions of people in the world. The Vioxx works by blocking COX-2 enzymes in the body that trigger pain and inflammation.

However, very relieving as it may sound, this arthritis drug rofecoxib was proven to cause and doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Class action suits filed against Merck begun in 2002. Doctors told their patients about the bad effects this drug cause. In October 5, 2004, a worldwide class action lawsuit against Merck and Co. was filed.

In September 30, 2004, Merck officially announced of voluntary recall of Vioxx from all markets worldwide. A warning was issued to prevent people from taking the Vioxx and to return all unused pills. It also causes other life-threatening diseases, such as, blood clots, angina and nonbacterial meningitis, severe intestinal damage, ulcerations and bleeding, and kidney damage. Other minor side effects include flu symptoms, weakness, loss of appetite, rash or pail skin, swelling of hand feet and other extremities.

Many blamed the Food and Drug Administration or the FDA, because it is its duty to assure people of harmless foods and drugs. Also, the FDA was blamed for giving Merck a fast-track, 6-month approval process. Vioxx was distributed in the United States in 1999. They want FDA to push drug companies to conduct longer tests before they can sell it so that people are given the right warning.

by: Blur Loterina

Vioxx Recall Lawsuits

The drug Vioxx is a COX-2 inhibitor designed by the company Merck Inc. It was ordered to be pulled from American and European markets on April 7th 2005 after it was discovered that there were potentially deadly side effects from its use.

Doctors and researchers both believed that the drug Vioxx could cause cardiovascular problems and recently a Texas jury awarded a $253.4 million wrongful death settlemtn to the widow of a man who allegedly died from Vioxx-related complications.

Experts will now agree that Merck knew of the danger the Vioxx presented, but instead chose to market the drug as a safe way to reduce pain and inflammation. This terrible misjudgment has lead to a variety of dangerous and deadly complications including deep vein thrombosis, stroke, pulmonary embolism, blood clots and other serious heart damage.

Currently there are 4200 pending lawsuits filed against Merck. Friends and families of Vioxx victims must attempt to pick up their shattered lives and face the reality that negligence, deception and greed have robbed them of their loved ones. Merck gambled with the pharmaceutical industry and lost.

If you believe that you may be affected with Vioxx complications please take a stand. Drug makers are hoping that victims of Vioxx will remain silent due to fear and intimidation. A Vioxx lawsuit might be the most effective way to show Merck and other drug makers that they must be accountable for their actions.

by: T.Going

That Was Vioxx... Concerns Your Health

Want a new cure for your illness? Think again. We have enough drugs to give us more than just headaches. Some drugs will not reveal its true and long term effect until you start to feel it more often.

We all know that drugs have side effects. How can it cure one part of your body without affecting the other parts? Drugs that are swallowed do not target only the part they are intended to cure. They are transported by our blood so they can go anywhere inside our body. We should be more aware of the drugs that relieve us of certain ailments but can cause us a more complicated disease in the future.

Are you familiar with Vioxx? It has been on the headlines for days. This controversial drug was used by about two million people worldwide.

Vioxx is prescribed to relieve osteoarthritis, rheumatic arthritis and acute pain. Produced by Merck & Co., it comes in a liquid and pill form. It is a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). NSAIDs refer to drugs with analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory effects, which reduce pain, fever and inflammation, such as muscle strain or sprain. They are sometimes called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents or NSAIAs. Examples of which are aspirin and ibuprofen.

Vioxx also belongs to a class of drugs called COX-2 (cyclooxygenase) inhibitors. Cyclooxygenase is an enzyme that controls inflammation. The Vioxx works by blocking COX-2 enzymes in the body that trigger pain and inflammation. COX-2 has been a major source of relief from arthritis pain, which afflicts tens of millions of people in the world.

In 2002, the company received complaints regarding their product. Market studies confirmed that Vioxx raises the risks of serious cardiovascular events including heart attacks and strokes, as well as other life-threatening side effects, such as, blood clots, angina and nonbacterial meningitis, severe intestinal damage, ulcerations and bleeding, and kidney damage. Other minor side effects include flu symptoms, weakness, loss of appetite, rash or pail skin, swelling of hand feet and other extremities.

It was not until September 30, 2004 that Merck officially announced of voluntary recall of Vioxx from all markets worldwide.

So, here is a lesson we have to learn. We can not trust any drug, even if it is produced by leading companies. You will never know what it is going to cause you. Always ask for a doctor’s prescription. Learn from experience and do not just go for new things that come your way. It’s very risky, especially if it concerns your health.

by: Blur Loterina

Vioxx Withdrawl

On Sept. 30, 2004 Merck announced a worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx® (rofecoxib). Vioxx had previously been prescribed in the treatment of arthritis and pain. Worldwide sales of Vioxx in 2003 were an estimated $2.5Billion and the drug was marketed in more than 80 countries around the world. This is one of several recent pharmaceutical products to have been put in the spotlight by both the national media and plaintiff lawyers.

Since sometime in the mid to late 90s a substantial number of pharmaceutical medications and medical devices have been removed from the market due to possible adverse health implications. The FDA acts as a regulatory body in approving health related products before they are marketed to consumers. The FDA moved to ban Ephedra in the US in 2004. However, the recent headlines about voluntary drug withdrawals have produced questions as to the FDA's recent performance.

Many people believe that the FDA did not test the drugs rigorously enough to determine all the possible health problems that they might cause. People believe that the rise in litigation over these medications was due to the fact that the FDA now allows pharmaceutical companies to “fast track” their products and get them through the process in a year. In fact, Vioxx was only released in 1999.

Some of the latest drugs where concerns have also arose are Bextra, Celebrex and Zyprexa. Litigation over these drugs may commence in the near future. US plaintiff lawyers have begun to put some serious time and research into possible claims that may arise from pharmaceutical drugs. Plaintiff lawyers also handle Mesothelioma, Car Accident, and a wide variety of different personal injury cases.

If you think that you may have been injured by a prescription drug that has recently made headlines, you may consider consulting with a lawyer. Many plaintiff attorneys handle cases on a contingency basis.

by: Richard Martin

Vioxx Lawsuit Fact 2

Not all Vioxx lawsuits are wrongful death suits. The plaintiff in the next Vioxx lawsuit which is slated to begin September 12th in New Jersey is a man who survived a heart attack in 2001 but blames Vioxx for causing the attack. The first federal Vioxx lawsuit is scheduled to begin November 28th.

Analysts are suggesting that if Merck continues to lose more of the Vioxx lawsuits, the number of Vioxx lawsuits may multiply exponentially. Analysts also suggest Merck may be forced to settle Vioxx lawsuits instead of battling them one by one, if the trend becomes that of Merck losing. For now, it is speculation but what is certain is that Merck will appeal the Ernst decision.

The Problem With Vioxx

Vioxx was launched in the United States in 1999 for the treatment of arthritis and was marketed in 80 countries and used by 84 million people worldwide.

The decision to recall Vioxx followed a three year trial, known 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 with a history of colorectal adenoma. The study revealed that an increased risk of cardiovascular complications began 18 months after patients started taking Vioxx.

Merck has been accused of concealing data which sent up red flags about the heart risk.

COX-2 Inhibitors

Vioxx was the second of a promising new class of drugs known as COX-2 inhibitors. The first of the class was Celebrex, approved by the FDA in 1998, and still being marketed. The third COX-2 inhibitor, Bextra was FDA approved in 2001 and withdrawn from the market in April 2005 due to lack of adequate data on the cardiovascular safety of long-term use of Bextra, increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events in short-term coronary artery bypass surgery trials, and reports of serious and potentially life-threatening skin reactions.

The Fallout

The recall of Vioxx stirred up concern over the entire class of COX-2 inhibitors and caused the FDA to come under scrutiny as well as older arthritis drugs known as NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). NSAIDs are drugs commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation and relieve pain.

When the COX-2 inhibitors were developed, they were marketed as having a gastrointestinal profile which was more safe. The popularity of the COX-2 inhibitors soared, that is, until the heart risk became a question.

The FDA has changed the label on Celebrex and all other NSAIDs to include additional warnings. As for Vioxx, the legal issues will continue to play out.

Vioxx Lawsuit Fact

Vioxx, or rofecoxib, the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribed for the treatment of arthritis and other acute pain, has been withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer.

According to a news release from the company, the decision was based on recent data from a study that suggests long-term use of Vioxx 25-mg may increase the "...relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular events, such as heart attach and stroke..."*

The manufacturer advises patients taking Vioxx to consult with their physician to discuss discontinuing use of Vioxx and the possibility of alternative treatments. And if you or someone you know was prescribed Vioxx and experienced any of the following, we would like to help:

• Heart attack
• Stroke
• Other serious blood, kidney, or cardiovascular problem

What Is VIOXX?

Vioxx was developed in 1999 by Merck Pharmaceuticals as one of the first of a new class of painkillers. Vioxx is a member of a class of drugs called COX-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs. These painkillers were developed to be more effective at stopping pain without irritating the stomach.

Vioxx works by blocking the COX-2 enzyme that is thought to contribute to inflammation. It specifically does NOT block the COX-1 enzyme, which protects the stomach lining from acids, making it easier to digest.

Why Is VIOXX dangerous?
The reason Vioxx causes heart attacks and stokes isn't certain, but COX-2 inhibitors suppress a protein responsible for the health of blood vessels and could promote clotting as a result. The COX-1 enzyme encourages blood clotting while the COX-2 enzyme inhibits clotting. Drugs like Vioxx that block COX-2 enzymes and allow COX-1 enzymes may increase blood clotting, an excess of which can lead to coronary events like heart attacks and strokes.

However, long before Merck pulled Vioxx from the market, studies led researchers to question the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx and other COX-2 inhibitors such as Celebrex. A study published in the Medical Journal showed that Vioxx might also cause kidney damage.

In addition to kidney failure, researchers are concerned about increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. In February, the FDA's arthritis drug advisory committee analyzed COX-2 inhibitors' cardiovascular risks. Merck presented a study to support is contention that Vioxx is safer on the gastrointestinal tract than other NSAIDs. Although the study found that Vioxx reduced the incidence of ulcers and other gastrointestinal problems by about half that of the over-the-counter NSAID Aleve, the study showed that people taking Vioxx had four times the risk of a heart attack.

Why should Merck be held liable for injuries caused by Vioxx?

The popular and heavily advertised arthritis drug Vioxx has been linked by researchers to an increase in the risk of blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. On August 25, 2004, a study financed by the FDA found that people taking the recommended dose of Vioxx were at three times the risk of heart attack and sudden death compared to persons taking other non-steroidal painkillers such as ibuprofen. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released another study in November 2004 that said Vioxx may have contributed to an additional 27,785 heart attacks or deaths from 1999 to 2003.

On September 29, 2004, Merck and Co., Inc. announced that it was withdrawing its arthritis drug Vioxx worldwide following indications after a colon cancer study confirmed long-standing concerns that the drug raises the risk of heart attack and stroke. Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market came after the Data Safety Monitoring Board overseeing a long-term study of the drug recommended that the study be halted immediately because of a dramatic increased risk of serious cardiovascular events in the study participants.

The fact that Vioxx probably increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes was known for three years, but Merck downplayed it and did not undertake studies to settle the matter. The risk was confirmed only by chance in a clinical trial for another purpose.

In 2000, the VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research) study was published. This study was designed to examine the effects of Vioxx on gastrointestinal side effects such as ulcers and bleeding. The study showed that patients taking Vioxx had a highly statistically significant five fold increase in heart attacks. This increased number of heart attacks was also accompanied by an increase in other thrombotic (blood clotting) adverse effects such as strokes and blood clots in the legs as well as problems with hypertension.

In 2001 Merck ordered no trial , did no tests on Vioxx's cardiovascular safety, and spent 100 million to promote the drug including that press release issued May 22 2001 entitled "Merck reconfirms favorable cardiovascular safety of vioxx" In 2001, the FDA sent to Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin a warning letter. In the eight-page letter, the FDA says Merck engaged "in a promotional campaign for Vioxx that minimizes the potentially serious cardiovascular findings that were observed" in a clinical trial comparing Vioxx to naproxen , a less-expensive painkiller . "Your promotional campaign discounts the fact" that in the trial , "patients on Vioxx were observed to have a four to five-fold increase" in heart attacks , compared with patients on naproxen , the letter said.

The FDA letter also criticized Merck for suggesting to physicians that the reason patients taking Vioxx had a higher incidence of heart attacks in the study was that naproxen has heart benefits. Merck has maintained that the reason it didn't know earlier of a link between Vioxx and heart attacks is because naproxen is "heart protective." But the FDA's letter says, "You fail to disclose that your explanation is hypothetical, has not been demonstrated by substantial evidence, and that there is another reasonable explanation, that Vioxx may have pro-thrombotic properties," (the clinical term for causing blood clots that could lead to heart attacks . )

The letter said the press release titled "Merck Confirms Favorable Cardiovascular Safety Profile of Vioxx " was "simply incomprehensible," given the rate of heart attacks and "serious cardiovascular events compared to naproxen ."

Emails unearthed by the Wall Street Journal confirm Merck executives knew about the cardiovascular risks as early as 2000.

A new analysis published online by the British journal The Lancet pooled results from 29 studies of Vioxx and found that people who took it had more than double the risk of heart attack than those given dummy pills or other painkillers.

Legal action against the drug's manufacturer, Merck, is going forward. Serious questions about when Merck was first aware that potentially dangerous side effects were associated with Vioxx, and whether it failed to timely inform public health authorities of these side effects are being investigated. Additionally, we will argue that Merck's heavy marketing campaign may have resulted in over prescription of the drug and led many people to use it without understanding its dangers.

Vioxx Lawsuit Overview

Taken by around 20 million people, Vioxx was one of the leading arthritis painkillers on the market until its withdrawal in September 2004. To date, attorneys have filed over 10,000 lawsuits and 190 class action lawsuits across the US as a result of health implications and deaths allegedly caused by Vioxx.

Vioxx, also known as Ceoxx and Ceeoxx, was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on May 20, 1999. The active ingredient, Rofecoxib, was said to treat osteoarthritis, acute pain conditions, and dysmenorrhoea with far fewer side effects than similar drugs. However, what later emerged is that Vioxx could potentially cause serious cardiovascular problems, including heart attack and stroke. The first lawsuit was won by the plaintiff in August 2005, with a Texas jury voting 10-2 to hold Merck liable for the death of a former user of Vioxx. This landmark case opened up the possibility of many more lawsuits against Merck, and indeed many more successful cases have since been filed. In anticipation of many legal battles, Merck has reserved $1.64 billion in its Vioxx legal defense fund. With only a small percentage of cases having come to court, it seems that there is still a very long road ahead for Merck and the alleged victims of Vioxx.