Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx Years Ago

When the Vioxx story first broke, this journal praised Merck for quickly responding to the news that its pain-killer could also be a patient-killer. One of the joys of journalism is the timeliness of the writing. One of the great trade-offs, though, comes in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the facts. It now seems that the support of Merck’s actions in an earlier report here was premature and wrong. According to Swiss scientists, there was more than enough evidence four years ago for Merck to remove the drug from the market. It didn’t.

In a report in the British medical journal The Lancet, researchers at the University of Berne, Switzerland, said, “"Our findings indicate that rofecoxib (Vioxx) should have been withdrawn several years earlier.” Matthias Egger, a professor at the university's department for Social and Preventative Medicine, held a news conference recently wherein he said, “The company could and should have made the statement several years back, when the data we analyzed were readily available."

What the Swiss scientists did was take those data and, because their paychecks weren’t riding on any particular result, determined that Vioxx wasn’t such a good thing to take. Dr. Egger said, "It could be that without independent evaluation of the data, the assessment of adverse effects is biased so that the risks of a drug appear smaller.”

Like all good scientists, Dr. Egger seems to pull his punches. Richard Horton, who edits The Lancet didn’t. Merck’s actions, he said, were clearly a case of "ruthless, short-sighted, and irresponsible self interest. The licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of unambiguous evidence of harm have been public-health catastrophes. This controversy will not end with the drug's withdrawal."

Perhaps, it is too much to expect businessmen to act like responsible medical practitioners. The drive for enhanced shareholder value in this case got people killed, and in the end, cost shareholders 40% of their share value, and they face $10-15 billion in litigation. The Kensington Review unreservedly apologizes for its previous erroneous opinion of events.


© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.


Home