vioxx withdrawal

Vioxx Warning

The FDA first became aware of problems involving Vioxx following the completion of the VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study in June 2000. That study showed Vioxx users suffered a significantly greater number of heart attacks than those taking a competing drug.

In April 2002, nearly two years after learning of the serious problems, the FDA responded to the VIGOR study by requiring new safety information on the labeling of Vioxx. This delay is surprising when compared to the speed with which the FDA approved the drug -- Vioxx was approved under an expedited review process that took only six months.

fda vioxx warning

Vioxx Settlement

FDA Warning

November 9, 2007—Merck announced that is has offered $4.85 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits filed by people claiming injuries after taking Vioxx.

Vioxx was removed from the market in September 2004 after several studies revealed that the drug was associated with a substantially greater risk of heart attacks and strokes.

In September 2001, the FDA fired off a warning letter to Merck & Co. concerning the manner in which it was promoting Vioxx. The letter contended that Merck & Co. had engaged in false and misleading advertising.

The FDA was concerned with statements by Merck officials that minimized the findings of the VIGOR study. The letter said in part:

[Y]our promotional campaign discounts the fact that in the VIGOR study, patients on Vioxx were observed to have a four to five fold increase in myocardial infarctions (MIs) compared to patients on the comparator non-steroidal antiinflarnmatory drug (NSAID), Naprosyn (naproxen).

We have reprinted the full text of that warning letter to Merck. It should be noted that this letter was written seven months before the FDA finally warned the public of the risk by requiring a warning label on the medication.

The FDA finally required Merck & Co. to add a warning to Vioxx in April 2002. This warning clearly was inadequate to protect consumers and inform physicians of the problems with the drug. Even after the warning was placed on the label, Merck & Co. continued spending $100 million per year promoting the drug. It has been estimated that more than 2 million people were on the drug at the time of the withdrawal.

In the face of criticism over its handling of the Vioxx withdrawal, the FDA has announced it will re-evaluate the manner in which it regulates the drug industry. Some states, including North Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Washington Wisconsin, and Wyoming have implemented their own drug safety program to protect residents against dangerous drugs like Vioxx. This warning system can alert pharmacists within seconds of possible drug dangers.

On March 1, 2005, a top FDA official admitted to a Senate panel that the agency made significant mistakes in handling the Vioxx withdrawal. Dr. Sandra Kweder noted that the agency should have been more forceful in requiring stringent label changes when evidence began to accumulate that Vioxx may lead to significant health problems.

For more information about the Vioxx withdrawal, please complete our online contact form.

 
© 2006 by Martin & Jones