Thursday, August 7, 2008 17:33 MDT
Idaho Business Review
subscribeWANT THREE FREE ISSUES?
Daily EmailDaily e-mail updates
ADVERTISING? | CLASSIFIEDS | GOT A TIP? | TOP LIST | RETURN TO HOME RSS 2.0 CONTACT US at 208.336.3768
SEARCH ARCHIVES
See stories on: Idaho Companies Idaho Industries Idaho People

Idaho Business News

Idaho will get $1.1 million from Vioxx settlement

POSTED: 09:55 MDT Wednesday, May 21, 2008

by IBR staff report

Article Tools
Printer friendly edition Printer-friendly
E-mail this to a friend E-mail this
RSS Feed RSS feed
Digg this story Digg It!
Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Tags -  Idaho Attorney General, insurance

Idaho will receive $1.1 million as part of a $58 million settlement between pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. Inc. and 30 states that took part in a three-year investigation over the company’s allegedly deceptive promotion of the painkiller Vioxx. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, whose office filed a consent judgment between Merck and Idaho in the state’s Fourth District Court on Tuesday, said in a press release that the agreement will require Merck to receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration before launching any television drug advertisements. The company must also delay ads for new pain relief drugs if the agency recommends it and comply with any FDA comments on the ads.

 

“Merck’s aggressive, early direct-to-consumer promotion of Vioxx drove hundreds of thousands of consumers to seek prescriptions before Vioxx’s risks were fully understood,” Wasden said in the press release. “This action gives the FDA clear discretion and authority to make such an assessment on all new Merck pain drugs and requires Merck to submit television ads to the FDA for suggested revisions and acceptance of the final product before running the ads.”

Merck stopped selling Vioxx in 2004 after an independent study showed that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

The judgment prohibits Merck from using deceptive scientific data when marketing to doctors, ghost writing articles and studies, and failing to adequately disclose conflicts of interest of its promotional speakers.

 

 

 

1 Comments

  1. Hopefully the $1.1M will be used for public health issues like preventative education and testing instead of being dumped into the General Fund. Or how about $1.1M for nursing education??

    Comment By Patrick
    Wednesday, May 21, 2008 @ 1:35 PM

Leave a comment
Leave this field empty

Name:

Email:


You have characters left.

Commenters, let's maintain a civil discussion here. Please observe the following guidelines:

  1. Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
  2. Do not personally attack or bait other commenters.
  3. Express your own views; don't just argue for argument's sake.
  4. Sarcasm doesn't work on the Web. Either avoid it or clearly label it so you aren't misinterpreted.
  5. Don't make the same point repetitively.
  6. No spam. Link to a commercial site only if it's relevant to the discussion.
  7. Putting your name on your comments increases their value and credibility. However, if you must conceal your identity, please choose one pseudonym and stick to it. No "sock puppets."