Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Merck says it will defend Vioxx

TRENTON, N.J. - On the eve of the second trial over its painkiller Vioxx, pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. on Friday reasserted that it plans to aggressively fight the mounting lawsuits over the withdrawn drug, despite recently saying it might settle some suits.

Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck's general counsel and senior vice president, also tried to reassure investors that liability over Vioxx - estimated by analysts at up to $50-billion - isn't a threat to the Whitehouse Station-based company.

"We are in this for the long haul. We have both the resources and the resolve to address these cases one by one over many years," Frazier told reporters during a conference call. "Merck's future is both secure and promising."

Frazier seemed to backpedal slightly on statements he made last month indicating the company might settle a small number of lawsuits with Vioxx users who had limited heart risk factors and took the drug for 18 months or more.

"We will have to make decisions about what's the right way to proceed with those cases," Frazier said, but he said repeatedly that Merck will fight each case individually.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market last September after research linked the popular arthritis drug to increased risk of heart attack and stroke after 18 months' use, although some plaintiff attorneys and doctors say the risk began rising much sooner. Nearly 5,000 cases have been filed against Merck.

Mike Krensavage, pharmaceuticals analyst at Raymond James & Associates, said Merck officials may fear establishing "a big cookie jar" by saying they will settle cases, driving more patients to file lawsuits.

Frazier said the "very capable legal team" representing Merck in a trial starting Monday in Atlantic City would stick with the company strategy of presenting "sound, reliable evidence" to convince the jury that Vioxx did not cause plaintiff Frederick Humeston's heart attack.

Frazier said Humeston, of Boise, Idaho, who survived a heart attack four years ago, only took Vioxx intermittently and had multiple cardiac risk factors, which Humeston's lawyer disputes.

The general counsel for Merck said the company has been making changes "as we go along," but would not discuss possible shifts in strategy between this trial and the first one, in which a Texas jury awarded $253.4-million to the widow of a Wal-Mart produce manager who had taken Vioxx for several months. That amount will be reduced to about $26-million because of Texas' caps on punitive damages, and Merck plans to appeal.

Frazier also reiterated that the Texas jurors used "flawed science" in their decision, partly because an abnormal heart rhythm rather than a heart attack was blamed for that plaintiff's death.

Meanwhile, pharmaceuticals analyst Tony Butler at Lehman Brothers said the conference call appeared to be an attempt to get favorable, or at least less unfavorable, publicity before the Atlantic City trial, given what Merck has called a negative media blitz since the Texas verdict.

Frazier told the reporters a major credit rating agency recently affirmed Merck's financial strength, which he said will allow the company to continue investing in research on new drugs.

Merck shares rose 12 cents to close at $29.31 in trading Friday on the New York Stock Exchange.

[Last modified September 10, 2005, 01:22:18]