Please see other thread for info
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=287978
Vioxx lawsuit defeated adequate warning provided
Some time ago I answered a question about class action lawsuits against Vioxx and other drugs in that class of medications. In that answer I detailed why such lawsuits were likely to fail and the responsibility fall on the provider as to the appropriateness on a case by case basis, as the drug's known risks for cardiac involvement and other reactions had been published and acknowledged in the literature. This would be the most likely defense to such a lawsuit.
For some reason that response was deleted.
In August, Merck was found liable by a Texas jury in the first lawsuit involving the drug Vioxx, a case that could have a profound effect on thousands of other cases filed against the company headquartered in New Jersey. This morning a Superior court in New Jersey, where the majority of cases are expected to be filed, found, Merck, the maker of Vioxx, not responsible for the heart attack in Frederick Humeston, et al. v. Merck and Co., Inc. The reason, the maker of Vioxx adequately warned of the potential cardiac risks of this medication, Humeston had other cardiac risks and did not take the medication for the length of time 18 months or more found to have inceased risks. The case filed in state superior court in Atlantic City, N.J., in September, was expected to last four to five weeks went to the jury on Tuesday. The 56 year old Boise, Idaho man, sued Merck, alleging that a heart attack he had Sept. 18, 2001, was caused by Vioxx. He said he began taking the drug regularly/ intermittent on July 16, 2001 -- two months before his heart attack, which he survived.
Each patient had different cardiac risks, in fact, the Texas case involved cardiac risks associated with rhythm irregularities called arrhythmia, that had not been linked Vioxx in studies, which may originate due to inballances in electrolytes during/after training or participation in marathons, also increased risk of DVT, not associated with the drug and thus could be attributed to other factors in the health of the 59-year-old marathon runner who was taking the arthritis painkiller at the time of his death. Verdict for the Texas lawsuit is under appeal.
The challenge in any successful case would be to overcome the other factors in a patient's lifestyle, health and medical condition to isolate the cause to the risk of the drug it's self, most of this responsibility will rest with the providers.
Vioxx is not the only drug in this class of medications called Cox-2 inhibitors (Cyclooxygenase-2-Selective Inhibitors) there are also natural substances and supplements that are not regulated that may have the same effect, this is why it is important that any patient thoroughly understand the risks asociated with their medications and other substances used to manage medical conditions and to discuss all these with their provider and pharmacist.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=287978
Vioxx lawsuit defeated adequate warning provided
Some time ago I answered a question about class action lawsuits against Vioxx and other drugs in that class of medications. In that answer I detailed why such lawsuits were likely to fail and the responsibility fall on the provider as to the appropriateness on a case by case basis, as the drug's known risks for cardiac involvement and other reactions had been published and acknowledged in the literature. This would be the most likely defense to such a lawsuit.
For some reason that response was deleted.
In August, Merck was found liable by a Texas jury in the first lawsuit involving the drug Vioxx, a case that could have a profound effect on thousands of other cases filed against the company headquartered in New Jersey. This morning a Superior court in New Jersey, where the majority of cases are expected to be filed, found, Merck, the maker of Vioxx, not responsible for the heart attack in Frederick Humeston, et al. v. Merck and Co., Inc. The reason, the maker of Vioxx adequately warned of the potential cardiac risks of this medication, Humeston had other cardiac risks and did not take the medication for the length of time 18 months or more found to have inceased risks. The case filed in state superior court in Atlantic City, N.J., in September, was expected to last four to five weeks went to the jury on Tuesday. The 56 year old Boise, Idaho man, sued Merck, alleging that a heart attack he had Sept. 18, 2001, was caused by Vioxx. He said he began taking the drug regularly/ intermittent on July 16, 2001 -- two months before his heart attack, which he survived.
Each patient had different cardiac risks, in fact, the Texas case involved cardiac risks associated with rhythm irregularities called arrhythmia, that had not been linked Vioxx in studies, which may originate due to inballances in electrolytes during/after training or participation in marathons, also increased risk of DVT, not associated with the drug and thus could be attributed to other factors in the health of the 59-year-old marathon runner who was taking the arthritis painkiller at the time of his death. Verdict for the Texas lawsuit is under appeal.
The challenge in any successful case would be to overcome the other factors in a patient's lifestyle, health and medical condition to isolate the cause to the risk of the drug it's self, most of this responsibility will rest with the providers.
Vioxx is not the only drug in this class of medications called Cox-2 inhibitors (Cyclooxygenase-2-Selective Inhibitors) there are also natural substances and supplements that are not regulated that may have the same effect, this is why it is important that any patient thoroughly understand the risks asociated with their medications and other substances used to manage medical conditions and to discuss all these with their provider and pharmacist.