PHARMACEUTICAL giant Merck & Co put its patients at risk of heart attack by making "scientifically unsound" claims and corrupting studies about its blockbuster drug Vioxx, a leading arthritis expert told the Federal Court.
Royal Adelaide Hospital director of rheumatology Les Cleland, who was identified by Merck marketing staff as a Vioxx critic who needed urgent attention in 2004, said he believed the company "minimised" the risks of potential cardiovascular problems by skewing research.
Professor Cleland testified in the class action against Merck & Co that the company implausibly claimed a study that found Vioxx caused more heart attacks when compared with anti-inflammatory drug Naproxen could be explained by Naproxen having heart protect-ive properties rather than Vioxx being unsafe.
"The attribution of benefit to Naproxen and implied null effect of (Vioxx) with regard to the (cardio-vascular) risk was scientifically unsound and, by design or other-wise, had the effect of minimising or avoiding perceptions of CV risk associated with Vioxx," he said in his witness statement, tendered to the court on behalf of the plaintiff.
"That this interpretation could have put patients at risk for CV events is obvious."
No comments:
Post a Comment