Functional Medicine | Get Healthy Now, Naturally | Alternative Health Information Functional Medicine | Get Healthy Now, Naturally | Alternative Health Information Functional Medicine | Get Healthy Now, Naturally | Alternative Health Information Functional Medicine | Get Healthy Now, Naturally | Alternative Health Information Your Medical Detective

Doctor's views on Vioxx out of mainstream: lawyers

Print Page

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) - A doctor who testified that studies of Merck & Co.s' Vioxx did not show it increased the risk heart attacks has views that are "out of the mainstream" based on biased research funded by the drug company, plaintiffs' lawyers argued on Wednesday.

During cross examination, attorney Mark Lanier also questioned the qualifications and motivation of Merck expert witness Dr. Barry Rayburn, a cardiologist from the University of Alabama.

Lanier told the state court jury that his definition of a mainstream doctor was "anyone who has not taken money from Merck."

Merck is being sued by Thomas Cona, 59, and John McDarby, 77, long-term former Vioxx users who blame the pain medicine for their heart attacks. Their lawsuits are among nearly 10,000 Vioxx product liability suits that have been filed against Merck since it withdrew the popular arthritis treatment from the market in September of 2004.

Lanier, who represents Cona, is the only attorney so far to have beaten Merck in a Vioxx trial, winning a multimillion-dollar jury award for a Texas widow of a Vioxx user last August. Subsequent trials in state and federal courts have gone in Merck's favor.

Lanier also peppered Rayburn with questions about articles and studies -- including those funded by Merck -- that showed an elevated risk of heart attacks in Vioxx users but had not been included in the doctor's testimony on Tuesday.

Rayburn told the jury that some of the articles or studies cited by Lanier were not included in his testimony because he "felt it was important to look at things that were peer reviewed." Rayburn added later: "I also looked at many studies we have not talked about."

Peer reviewed studies tend to have more credibility as they have been subjected to scrutiny by other experts in the field to make sure they were designed and carried out with proper controls and were up to industry standards.

On Tuesday, Rayburn testified that studies, covering a total of about 28,000 patients, contained no evidence that Vioxx exposed users to a higher rate of heart attacks and other cardiovascular events than comparable drugs or placebos.

Merck pulled its $2.5 billion-a-year pain drug off the market after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who took it for at least 18 months.

This trial is the first to involve long-term Vioxx users.Rob Gordon, a lawyer representing McDarby, sought to undermine Rayburn's credibility with the jury by grilling him on his pay for Vioxx legal work for Merck. He also asked about his involvement in other Vioxx clinical trials.

"Isn't it true that you expect that Merck will continue to ask you to be an expert witness in Vioxx litigation around the country?" Gordon asked Rayburn, who answered that he did.

Plaintiffs say the company knew the drug increased heart risks long before it withdrew the medicine from the market, but failed to adequately warn users because it placed profits ahead of safety.