Posted on 10/01/2004 10:14:28 PM PDT by neverdem
GUEST OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Cleveland — After three years of denying that the arthritis drug Vioxx could induce heart attacks and strokes, this week Merck bowed to reality: it withdrew Vioxx from the market.
The impact of this decision is far-reaching, and not only because tens of millions of people have tried Vioxx. It also highlights the absence of Food and Drug Administration oversight of the pharmaceutical industry as well as the lack of comprehensive long-term studies of not only Vioxx but its entire class of arthritis drugs.
In 2001, I was part of a team from the Cleveland Clinic that published a paper demonstrating the significant heart attack risk of Vioxx. Our research, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, found that compared to naproxen, a commonly used over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drug with similar benefits, Vioxx has a five times greater heart attack risk. In response, Merck claimed that early conclusions about the risk were flawed, and attributed the comparatively high heart attack rates to an unproven protective effect of naproxen. Our study was followed by several others demonstrating Vioxx's dangers. Each time Merck had a similar reply: the study was "flawed."
Merck finally had to acknowledge the truth, but only by accident. The company undertook a large, randomized trial of 2,600 patients with colon polyps in hopes of proving that Vioxx could help their condition. In the process, though, Merck discovered that 3.5 percent of patients taking Vioxx suffered heart attacks or strokes as against 1.9 percent taking a placebo. Merck at last did the right thing by voluntarily and abruptly taking Vioxx off the market.
There are two important issues to consider here. First, the risk of heart attack or stroke found in the Merck study, at 15 cases per 1,000 patients, may be greatly underestimated. Merck's trial did not include anyone with known heart disease - patients who might be expected to have the highest risk.
And the problem may extend beyond Vioxx and its users. While it's true that when compared to the other Cox-2 inhibitors, Vioxx has repeatedly carried a far greater risk of heart attack and stroke, none of the manufacturers of Vioxx's class of drugs, called Cox-2 inhibitor agents, have studied patients who already have heart disease. The number of patients who may have sustained heart attack or stroke as a result of using these drugs could be tens of thousands. It would be premature to conclude that the other drugs still on the market, like Celebrex and Bextra, do or do not carry some risk of heart attack until sufficient testing is done.
While we remain in this zone of uncertainty, people with arthritis should remember that conventional over-the-counter agents like naproxen (as in Aleve) or ibuprofen (as in Advil) work extremely well, are much cheaper than the Cox-2 agents, and are not known to have any risk of heart attacks. In addition, one of the most-cited benefits of the Cox-2 agents - that they are less likely to cause stomach ulcers than over-the-counter drugs - may ben grossly exaggerated.
Second, and what may be more alarming, is that despite studies showing the magnitude of the public health problem, for several years Merck did nothing to investigate. This surely represents a conflict between the interests of the public and the interests of a company with a blockbuster drug that had sales of $2.5 billion in 2003.
Instead of doing the requisite research in patients with heart disease - who frequently have arthritis as well and are thus prime users of anti-inflammatory medicines - the company undertook studies that avoided them. At the same time, Merck spent at least $100 million a year for direct-to-consumer Vioxx advertising, while the company's employees and their consultants published several papers in medical journals rebutting studies reporting Vioxx's heart attack risk. The Food and Drug Administration could have forced Merck to do the appropriate research studies, but instead it was a bystander.
As the Vioxx debacle shows, we have a long way to go in this country to get on track with prescription medications. Most important, we need a stronger regulatory agency to compel pharmaceutical companies to do the proper studies and force these companies to stop direct-to-consumer advertising unless a drug has major benefits for patients and negligible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Our two most common deadly diseases should not be caused by a drug.
Eric J. Topol is chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Good info ...
I had a severe inflammation in my lower spine, to the point of near immobility. My doctor prescibed VIOXX, and it was like switching a light bulb off. I was able to regain mobility, which allowed me to perform exercises to strengthen my lower back muscles for long term relief. I used VIOXX for approximately 8 weeks. It worked EXACTLY as intended. Now, I am not sure I would want to take this drug continuously for years, but it did do what was expected and needed for the short term. As such, I am saddened that the drug has been withdrawn. My own personal experience tells me that it has positive theraputic value. No drug is completely safe or risk free.
I'll have to speak with my dr. about this matter.
There are many patients who absolutely swear by Vioxx as the only medication that consistently helps their severe orthopedic problems. Patients who would accept the slightly increased risk of heart attacks to relieve their agony. What are these patients to do now?
Neverdem, how do NSAIDs such as naproxen stack up against COX-2 inhibitors as regards liver toxicity?
I was busy typing away on post #6 while you posted #4. This is exactly the point I was making. People do not realize the absolute agony of back problems and other arthritic/orthopedic conditions. They have no idea. It is a tragedy that the litigation industry has forced Vioxx off the market.
For short term use this is a fantastic drug. Any of the Cox-1 or Cox-2 drugs will have side effects if used too long. (Even Aspirin) Those pathways are included in the body for a reason.
I would also caution people about bad advice in the NY Times "expert" report anti-pharmaceutical/trial lawyer hit piece: the recommended Ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil, Nuprin) thickens the blood just like Vioxx, I am told.
Not only that, but the money Merck is going to have to pay out in settling litigation claims is money they won't spend on samples and patient-assistance programs for other drugs they produce.
And destroy Merck's contribution to the world class research in an industry that the US is the unquestioned leader in the world: medical and pharmaceutical technology. The "rat party" and its trial lawyers will eliminate this leadership unless we fight these evil b*st*rds.
Yup, every drug is a balance between risk and benefit, between cost and efficacy, etc, etc. My goodness, even opiates have some value, depending upon the circumstances. Again, long term use of opiates is probably not a good thing either. Damn lawyers...
In any case thank God you showed an excellent response to Vioxx. May you enjoy continued good health, my friend.
I was prescribed Vioxx for a back injury, I used it for a month, but it seemed useless. It did nothing for the back pain. I stopped taking it and switched to regular OTC pain relievers. Thank God I didn't keep using it.
Actually, those drugs inhibit platelet aggregation in the same manner as aspirin.
Vioxx worked well on my cervical arthritis, herniated lumbar discs, and knee and ankle fluid/inflammation issues but I never took it for over a week or two at a time and in conjunction with some fine opiate.
My wife swears by Bextra for da crampster.
This cardiologist has solid creds and I'm sure is no pal of the malpractice lawyers.
I hate to see Merck take a hit....they are a first class dope outfit.
and I'm sorry for those who really need it all the time.
(I was taking Vioxx for the first time just weeks after open heart btw)
Thanks for that info. I'll mention this article to my physician at my next office visit, but you have put my mind to rest for now.
Bextra has helped my arthritic condition. I have been taking it for almost two years, and am aware of the possibility of liver damage with extended use. My doctor periodically checks for any signs of that problem.
Trust FR - if there's new info on any topic, someone will post it. GO FR!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.