(NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C., 4 October, 2005) - British Columbians who may
have been put at risk
because of the drug VIOXX, will be represented in a class action law
suit filed October 1, 2004,
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The suit against Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. and associated firms,
developers and promoters of
VIOXX, was initiated by the law firm of Poyner Baxter of North
Vancouver, which works
predominantly in the field of class action suits. It will parallel
similar litigation worldwide.
VIOXX - also known as CEOXX in some countries -has been prescribed for
the relief of arthritic
and other acute pain. It was withdrawn from the market worldwide by
Merck & Company on September
28, 2004. after studies demonstrated a significantly increased risk to
patients of cardiovascular
events, including strokes and heart attacks. Trials which commenced in
2000 involved 2,600
patients. Conclusive results concerned those who used the drug for 18
months or more, but Merck
claimed evidence did not indicate increased risk for those whose usage
was of less duration.
VIOXX, with annual sales of $US 2.5 billion worldwide, has been used by
84 million patients since
it was introduced in 1999. It has been the 10th best selling drug in
Canada with 2003 sales of
$200 million.
Under B.C.’s “Class Proceedings Act,” a suit is brought in the name of
one individual as
“representative of a class.” The Poyner Baxter action cites the case of
one person, but if certified by the Supreme Court, it will represent and potentially
benefit everyone in the
province who has used VIOXX.
An excerpt from the statement of claim cites:
“VIOXX has been associated with an increased risk of serious, adverse
cardiovascular
complications, including but not limited to, heart attack, stroke,
angina pectoris, atrial
fibrillation, bradycardia, hematoma, irregular heartbeat, palpitation,
premature ventricular
contraction, tachycardia, venous insufficiency, cerebrovascular
accident, congestive heart
failure, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, transient ischemic
attack, and unstable
angina.
“Defendants knew or ought to have known at least as early as 2000 that
there was a significant
risk of serious adverse cardiovascular complications from ingesting
VIOXX. The Defendants failed
to apprise the Plaintiff or his physicians of that risk.
The suit explains that information to physicians, pharmacists and
patients in Canada failed to
warn of the serious adverse cardiovascular risks associated with
ingesting VIOXX, whereas in the
U.S., this side-effects advisory was standard:
“Heart attacks and other serious cardiovascular events, such as blood
clots in your body have
been reported in patients taking VIOXX.”
“It is simply not good enough in the health field to say ‘oops, we’re
sorry,’ and then carry on
as if it is business as usual,” said lawyer Jim Poyner.
“The essential point in an action like this is the phrase that they
‘knew or ought to have known’
the dangers to patients. The evidence is clear that Merck knew something
was wrong as early as
2000 and failed to inform Canadians, not even the cautionary warning
given to Americans,” Poyner
said.
The complete text of the Statement of Claim can be found at
www.poynerbaxter.com
- 30 -
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Poyner Baxter, Suite 408 - 145
Chadwick Court
North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3K1
Telephone: 604.988 6321 Fax: 604.988 3632
e-mail: poyner.baxter@telus.net
web site: www.poynerbaxter.com
Click to Close Window
POYNER BAXTER