Doctor says Vioxx didn't kill man

Testifying on behalf of Merck & Co., a cardiologist on Tuesday blamed coronary artery disease - not Vioxx - for a heart attack suffered by a man suing the maker of the now-withdrawn arthritis drug.
Dr. Barry Rayburn, a professor of medicine at the University of Alabama-Birmingham hired by Merck as a $600-an-hour expert witness, said Tuesday his review of John McDarby's medical records and clinical trials of the drug didn't support McDarby's claim that Vioxx caused him to be stricken.
But in a blow to Merck, Rayburn was barred from telling jurors his opinion that McDarby's April 15, 2004, heart attack was brought on by stress related to a hip fracture he suffered the same day.
Before testifying in front of the jury, Rayburn was questioned in court about the scope of his proposed testimony. Afterward, Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee said the doctor could not offer that opinion because he said he couldn't say "with a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that the broken hip triggered the heart attack.
McDarby's lawyers say the heart attack caused McDarby to collapse in the living room of his Park Ridge home and that his body twisted as he fell to the floor, breaking his right hip before he landed.
The trial, now in its fourth week, is the first involving long-term users of the popular arthritis drug, which Merck pulled off the market in September 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months' use.
McDarby, a 77-year-old diabetic, took Vioxx for four years before he was stricken.
Fellow plaintiff Thomas Cona, 59, whose case was combined with McDarby's for trial purposes, said he took Vioxx for three years - including after his 2003 heart attack - before it was voluntarily pulled from the market by Merck.
Rayburn said there was no evidence to show Vioxx causes heart attacks, downplaying the significance of both the clinical study that prompted the drug's withdrawal and another in which patients taking Vioxx had five times as many heart attacks as those taking naproxen.
Up to 80 percent of diabetics die of cardiovascular disease, said Rayburn, one of Merck's final witnesses in the trial.
In an abbreviated 15-minute cross-examination at the end of the day, Cona's lawyer attacked Rayburn's credibility, noting that he had allowed two of his board certifications to lapse and accusing him of "cherry picking" studies to bolster Merck's case.

Doctor testimony ends Merck defense in Vioxx trial

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) - Merck & Co. wrapped up its defense in the latest Vioxx product liability trial on Thursday with testimony from a psychiatrist who said one of the men who blames the pain drug for his heart attack never mentioned taking it when discussing his medical history.
Dr. Margaret Harbison, who treated plaintiff Thomas Cona for about four years beginning in August 2000, said in a videotaped testimony that Cona never told her he took Vioxx to treat back pain.
Harbison also quoted from her medical records that said Cona was "feeling good," his family life was good and he was playing golf three months after his June 2003 heart attack.
That somewhat contradicted earlier testimony from his daughter that Cona was weak and unable to participate in family activities after his heart attack.
The plaintiff's lawyers had earlier asked the court to ban the testimony, saying some of Harbison's comments would be prejudicial to the jury.
Under videotaped questioning from Cona's attorney, Mark Lanier, Harbison admitted that Merck would likely get more detailed information on his pain medications from the doctors who were treating that condition.
"I'd think you'd get more complete information," she said.
Merck is being sued by Cona, 59, and John McDarby, 77, both long-term former Vioxx users who blame the drug for their heart attacks.
Their lawsuits are among nearly 10,000 Vioxx product liability suits that have been filed against Merck since it withdrew the $2.5 billion-a-year pain drug from the market in September of 2004.
The drug was pulled from the market after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who took it for at least 18 months. This trial in New Jersey state court is the first to involve long-term Vioxx users.
Lanier is the only attorney so far to have beaten Merck in a Vioxx trial, winning a multimillion-dollar jury award for a Texas widow of a Vioxx user last August. Subsequent trials in state and federal courts have gone in Merck's favor.
The plaintiffs say Merck knew the drug increased heart risks long before it withdrew the medicine from the market, but failed to adequately warn users because it placed profits ahead of safety.
"I think the evidence has showed that Merck acted responsibly in testing the medication before it was approved for market and continued to test the medicine after approval and that all the information was shared with the FDA," Merck spokesman Chuck Harrell said outside the courtroom.
Asked for his thoughts as the trial drew to a close, Lanier said: "I'd rather be sitting in my chair than Merck's.
"I don't know that we win," he cautioned. "We need the jury to say that Merck is liable."
Closing arguments for the trial, which started on March 6, are set to begin on Monday.