Whistleblower Lawyer & Attorney : LaBovick Law Firm, Florida : Federal False Claims Act, Qui Tam

Merck's former billion dollar baby, Vioxx, popular arthritis Medicine, is still making headlines, despite having been pulled off the market for several years.  A recent  2,434-patient study, published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, finds that increased heart risk begins much earlier than after 18 months of use, as previously indicated by the drug maker. Of course, Merck is denying the relevancy of this study. According to Merck, the study is not conclusive.

There are over 27,000 lawsuits against Merck from people who claim to have been harmed by Vioxx.  I wonder if this new study will impact these lawsuits or not.   A few months ago, a jury awarded a man $47.5 million verdict against Merck for Vioxx, finding it responsible for his heart attack.

As though it could not get worse, The FDA rejected Merck's new wonder drug,  Arcoxia, a replacement for Vioxx. It is in the class of anti-inflammatory drugs called Cox-2 inhibitors, which are touted as less likely to cause stomach bleeding or have other dangers, but they have been linked to heart risks. On the bright side, Arcoxia is on sale in over 60 other countries, and made $265 million last year. And more importantly, the stock is doing great. Merck closed at $53.38 today an increase over previous days trading. That being the case, the company and shareholders must be happy with progress and must not find the new study to have merit. It could be the calm before the storm or it could cause those pending lawsuits against  Merck for Vioxx to mushroom. 

Time will tell. Stay tuned... Click here to read more on the new s study on Vioxx from Reuters

The Whistleblower Law Blog is presented as a service of the Private Law Firm, LaBovick & LaBovick, P.A., Civil Justice Prosecutors. LaBovick & LaBovick is a Plaintiff's firm that represents whistleblowers in Florida and throughout the United States in qui tam (False Claims Act) litigation

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Is there a correlation between a doctor's prescriptions to patients and the relationship with the prospective pharmaceutical company? There could be. According to a survey, The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported physician relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Most physicians (94%) reported some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and most of these relationships involved receiving food in the workplace (83%) or receiving drug samples (78%). More than one third of the respondents (35%) received reimbursement for costs associated with professional meetings or continuing medical education, and more than one quarter (28%) received payments for consulting, giving lectures, or enrolling patients in trials.

The survey found that 83% of physicians reported they had received food or beverages paid for by a pharmaceutical or medical products company. Similarly, 78% of doctors received free drug samples, 35% were reimbursed for professional meetings, and 28% were paid for consulting, speaking, or enrolling patients in clinical trials.

This gives one food for thought: Are doctor's prescribing the best drugs to patients based on relationships or the best drug of choice? There is a fine line between marketing and buying an endorsement from a doctor.  Whose job is it to determine if anyone crossed the line?  Who looks out for the patients? These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered. Hopefully, brave men and women in the pharmaceutical industry will come forward and shed light on any unfair and deceptive practices that put the public at risk.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks