Vioxx coverup exposed

On Dec. 8, 2005 the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) released an editorial stating that it has found proof some heart attacks related to Vioxx use were omitted from a key study. The now-famous VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research) study in 2000 was designed to compare gastrointestinal events (ulcers, etc.) between Vioxx and another pain reliever, naproxen. Cardiovascular events including heart attacks and strokes were monitored as well, and gave the first official indication that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks.

In a damning statement by the NEJM, the journal took the study authors to task for leaving out this vital information. “Until the end of November 2005, we believed that these were late events that were not known to the authors in time to be included in the article published in the Journal on November 23, 2000. It now appears, however, from a memorandum dated July 5, 2000, that was obtained by subpoena in the Vioxx litigation and made available to the Journal, that at least two of the authors knew about the three additional [heart attacks] at least two weeks before the authors submitted the first of two revisions and 4 1/2 months before publication of the article.”

The editorial does not venture to guess why this information was left out of the study. However, the NEJM uncovered further proof that it was left out on purpose. The editors found that information initially on a diskette was erased two days before it was submitted for publication on May 18, 2000, information that they “believe would have been relevant to the article.”

Even without including these three heart attack incidents, the study found some pretty clear-cut proof that Vioxx caused more heart attacks than the older naproxen. Because of this study, the FDA immediately ordered Merck, the makers of Vioxx, to strengthen its warning to patients about heart attacks. Eventually, the painkiller was recalled due to these risks.

But it does raise much deeper issues about Merck’s practices – and may be the tip of the iceberg in terms of covering up vital information. For years there have been rumors that Merck did indeed know about the link between Vioxx and heart problems, but the company continued to hype the drug as safe until it pulled Vioxx off the shelves. Internal documents and e-mails have surfaced that discuss the problem and possible solutions, though none of these documents have yet been submitted during a court case.

The NEJM concluded its editorial by saying: “Taken together, these inaccuracies and deletions call into question the integrity of the data on adverse cardiovascular events in this article.” But it’s not too far a stretch to say that they are actually calling into question the integrity of the authors, and perhaps Merck itself. It’s one thing to have internal “confidential” documents, but trying to put one over on one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals puts you into a whole other ball league.

If you or a loved one has experienced heart attacks, stroke, or any other heart problems while taking Vioxx, contacta Vioxx lawyer at Jim S. Adler & Associates right now for a free case review. You are probably feeling the stress from additional medical bills, lost work, and mental anguish. Don’t suffer alone. Jim S. Adler & Associates will help you get the compensation you deserve.