Lawsuit claims Merck used animal tests to suggest Vioxx was safe

By Ramsay Crooks

Published on July 22, 2005

Dr. John Pippin, a cardiologist and consultant to the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine, said, "From a medical perspective, using animal drug study results to predict human results is known to be extremely inaccurate." He further explained that it was scientifically unjustifiable to rely on animal research when opposing data from human clinical trial were available.

Defending itself from the accusations, Merck called the charges unfounded and stated that the group was misrepresenting the facts.

One of the studies in question compared Vioxx to naproxen, a common painkiller. Despite results that showed twice the rate of heart problems in patients taking Vioxx, Pippin alleges that Merck discounted the findings due to a test on monkeys that indicated naproxen protected against blood clots.

There were a number of other animal research studies completed, the results of which may have indicated that Vioxx® was safe for humans. The lawsuit contends that Merck chose to rely on these results rather than damaging data from clinical trials on human beings.

Comment on this article →