Plaintiff's lawyer questions Merck executive in Vioxx trial

By Ramsay Crooks

Published on July 22, 2005

Executive director Nancy Santanello was vigorously questioned on the stand regarding the safety of Vioxx, a popular painkiller that was pulled off of shelves in September of 2004. The first witness to testify, she was asked a number of questions regarding the safety of Vioxx and the way in which the drug was marketed.

In particular, attorney Mark Lanier alleged that Merck ignored a 2000 study named VIGOR that showed that patients taking Vioxx suffered four to five times as many heart attacks as those using naproxen (Aleve). Merck claimed the disparity was due to the cardioprotective qualities of naproxen. Lanier pointed out that Merck's explanation was hypothetical and that it was plausible to attribute the higher incidence of heart attacks to Vioxx.

After Merck issued a press release in May 2001 saying that Vioxx had a favorable cardiovascular safety profile, the FDA wrote a letter saying that characterization was "simply incomprehensible." Santanello agreed that the letter seemed to imply that the FDA took issue with Merck's explanation for the study results, but she did not concede that Merck lied in the press release.

In 2002, Merck added warnings to the Vioxx label. Over three thousand personal injury and wrongful death cases have been filed since Vioxx was recalled last year.

Comment on this article →