Merck wins victory in second Vioxx trial

MERCK won a major victory in the battle over its Vioxx painkiller yesterday when a New Jersey state jury found that the drug maker properly warned consumers about the risks of the medication.

The finding means Merck won't be held liable for the 2001 heart attack suffered by a man taking Vioxx.

After deliberating for less than eight hours over three days, the jury cleared Merck of allegations it failed to warn consumers about the drug's risks and engaged in "unconscionable commercial practices" in marketing it to doctors and their patients.

The verdict was Merck's first win out of two Vioxx-related trials. In August, a Texas jury found the company liable in a Vioxx user's death. Damages there will be cut to about one-tenth of the jury's €212 million award due to that state's caps on punitive damages.

Much of the seven-week trial, eagerly watched by lawyers and plaintiffs from around the country, relied on the testimony of medical experts.

Witnesses for Merck testified the company believed Vioxx was safe for the heart before the drug was pulled from the market a year ago after a study showed it doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes when taken for at least 18 months.

The company faces more than 6,500 similar lawsuits, which Merck, based in New Jersey, said it plans to fight one by one. Thursday's verdict means it might take several more cases before lawyers can find any sort of precedent that might determine Merck's ultimate Vioxx liability.

In the meantime, each case including a federal trial scheduled to begin in Houston on November 28 will continue to draw the attention of pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers and stock analysts.

Merck's stock rose $1.35, or 4.8%, to $29.76 in afternoon trading after the verdict.

The verdict capped a trial centring on Frederick "Mike" Humeston, 60, of Boise, Idaho, who was stricken two months after he began taking the drug to ease pain from a Vietnam war knee injury.

Mr Humeston's lawyer, Chris Seeger, said he was "absolutely surprised" by the verdict.

Only one juror, casino worker Juan Garcia, voted that Merck failed to give adequate warnings to doctors about the link between Vioxx and increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

"I think they should have known and explained more to the doctors and everyone," Mr Garcia said. He said he also believed Vioxx was a factor in causing Mr Humeston's heart attack.

But Vickie Heintz, who works in a manufacturer's credit department, said she believed stress and Mr Humeston's other health problems were responsible for his heart attack.

"I thought he had way too many health other issues," Ms Heintz said. "His medical records were riddled with many medicines."

Merck's lawyers had appeared to be fighting a losing battle, repeatedly clashing with Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee, who denied key motion requests by them and threw out the testimony of Merck's first witness on procedural grounds.

Mr Humeston's lawyers painted a picture of the two-time Purple Heart winner as a victim of a greedy drug company that put profits before patients, rushing Vioxx to market in an unsuccessful bid to beat rival Celebrex onto drug store shelves.

About 20 million Americans took Vioxx after it hit the market in 1999.