Your Thoughts Exactly: Vioxx and the Drug Controversy

Thursday, November 18, 2004

 

Vioxx and the Drug Controversy

Sounds like a bad band name, huh? I especially like the two X's at the end of the name. Gives it a real edgy sound. Ok, that's enough. In case you didn't know, Vioxx was pulled from the shelves a few weeks ago, when Merck decided that the study condemning Vioxx as a heart attack risk was too much for them to handle. What's interesting is that Merck probably pulled Vioxx not because they were afraid people were going to die, but because the study would now open them up to litigation: anyone who was taking Vioxx and had a heart attack could sue Merck and get a whole bunch of money. The bad press and the stock hit they took were, to them, worth it. Of course, people are already suing them, but that was to be expected. By trying to admit that they knew nothing about it up till the study, they're limiting their liability, I would guess.

I'm not going to take a side on the issue here. It's possible that Merck knew there was a heart attack risk and choose to downplay it. If that's the case, then they deserve whatever bad press and punishment that is handed down to them. But, and I am inclined to believe Merck on this one, they didn't know (many of the execs and the family members were taking Vioxx), then what's the big deal?

Vioxx's rival drug, Celebrex, is one of the hottest selling drugs on the market. It promised athritis pain relief with few side effects, especially compared to taking drugs like Aleve or Advil every day. Celebrex has something like a 1.8% heart attack rate (Don't quote me on that number). Vioxx had something like a 2.7% heart attack rate. Most news sources only bothered to quote "50% GREATER RISK OF HEART ATTACK", when really, the numbers we are dealing with are small to begin with, and small to end with. Like I said, I'm not going to take sides. If Merck knew this, they are obligated to tell the public about something like this.

But here's the reality. All drugs have side effects, and for some people they show up, and for some people they don't. That's why when you hear this commercials for drugs, they say "if you have advanced BLANK disease or a history of BLANK problems, consult your doctor." Because these drugs have detrimental effects on BLANK organ, and they want to make sure that if the side effect shows up, it hopefully won't kill you.

So if Merck had simply said "if you have history of heart disease, please consult your doctor" then we'd probably been in the clear. Doctor's could prescribe Celebrex or Tylenol for those he thought were going to have a heart attack, and Vioxx for those who didn't. And that's what prescribing medicine is about; minimizing risk while maximizing the treatment. There's always going to be a more powerful drug that has more side effects. That's why they don't prescribe morphine for a muscle pull. And if you want to take the safe route, you can always just take no drugs at all, and deal with it.

All said though, people do need the right to know these things. Is an increase of .9% in heart attack risk worth the increased pain relief and reduced stomach ulcers? These are choices that people make anyway, right? Is the increase of .1% of cholesterol worth eating that bacon? Is skipping that 3K run worth the increase of atherosclerosis and increase in ass-sitting time? People and doctors should have the facts, and that's why I'm not going to take a side in this one, because I don't know the facts. I'll just say that Merck has reason to lie and protect their collective ass, and this FDA scientist has a reason to blow the whistle and get on the front pages of the news.

Coming soon: Half-Life 2 review!

Comments:
as the son of a cardiologist who participates in hundreds of different studies from most if not all the major drug companies i think his comments are interesting on this and should be shared. of course, he doesn't know about this site so i'll paraphrase.

he thought that merck had an idea about these side effects, but not that they were prominent enough to stop the drug before going to market with it. also, he thought it spoke very highly of merck that they voluntarily pulled the drug considering it comprised like over $2 billion of business (or something like that). in his opinion a lot of the other companies would have left it alone until the law suits forced them to pull the drug. basically the point is that he thinks merck acted admirably considering the situation and is pretty pleased with their actions. of course, that being said, they deserve whatever happens with all the law suits because it was their product that was killing people.

hope that makes some sense

- lee
 
Lee, I'm not sure you understand the concept of an anonymous post.
 
Lee, did you post that second comment?

That's nice to think they acted admirably, but losing that 2 billion is sales is more admirable if you do it when you know there is danger (knowledge which it seems your dad thinks they had prior to the publicized study). If they knew before hand, then there is nothing admirable about it.

If they didn't know, it still isn't so admirable. Sure, if when they first heard the study they though - "this is dangerous, we need to pull this drug before it hurts more people," then yeah, bravo for them. But they had absolutely no reason to leave it on the market. Once they know of the study and keep selling the drugs, it is much easier to sue. Futher, they were going to take a huge hit in the market anyway from the publicity. I'm not sure how suits will work though, since, according to stu, it is not much more dangerous than supposedly "safe" drugs like celebrex. tough case to make. then again, the publicity will probably hurt them more than any lawsuits. esp if they are actually losing 2 billion in sales.
 
News, Resources and Information on Vioxx and its Effectsdrug vioxx
drug vioxx
 
Vioxx health - Merck Earns Fall After Vioxx Withdrawal NEW YORK (Reuters) -

Merck Earns Fall After Vioxx Withdrawal
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Merck & Co. MRK.N on Thursday said first-quarter profit fell 15 percent following the withdrawal of its arthritis drug Vioxx last year. Link to original article
attack heart vioxx
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?