Merck repels jaw injury claim
pharmafile | February 15, 2011 | News story | Sales and Marketing | Fosamax, Merck, US, lawsuit
A New Jersey state court jury has found in favour of Merck & Co in the company’s ongoing legal battle over osteoporosis drug Fosamax.
Fosamax (alendronate sodium), indicated for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, is at the centre of around 1,180 cases pending in US federal or state courts.
The plaintiff in Rosenberg v. Merck said she used Fosamax from 1999 to 2006 and suffered jaw problems and complications after a tooth extraction in December 2005.
Merck’s defence claimed the company had acted responsibly in researching and developing the drug and in monitoring it since it has been on the market.
In evidence it pointed out that clinical trials before and after approval of the drug saw more than 17,000 people treated with Fosamax.
“We believe the evidence showed the company acted properly, and that Fosamax did not cause the plaintiff’s dental and jaw problems,” said Merck’s lawyer Christy Jones.
“Unfortunately, the plaintiff had medical conditions that can cause people to develop jaw and dental problems, regardless of whether they were taking Fosamax,” Jones added.
The company said that she had an “extensive history” of periodontal and endodontic treatments and took powerful steroid medicines “known to suppress the body’s immune system and inhibit the body’s ability to heal”.
“The company provided appropriate and timely information about Fosamax to consumers and the medical, scientific and regulatory communities,” insisted Bruce N. Kuhlik, executive vice president and general counsel of Merck.
“Fosamax is a safe and effective medicine when used in accordance with the label,” he said.
This is the first state court case to go to trial in a co-ordinated action against Fosamax in New Jersey and the fourth case overall. The first three trials were part of the federal multi-district litigation proceedings for the Southern District of New York.
Merck won the first in May last year, while the second went to the plaintiff, although the company is appealing, and the third also was found in favour of Merck.
Adam Hill
Related Content
Sharp invests $100m in US and EU manufacturing and packaging facilities
Sharp Services, a pharmaceutical packaging and sterile manufacturing specialist, has announced investments totalling $100m across …
Moderna doses first US patient in phase 1 trial of mRNA-4106 for solid tumours
The START Center for Cancer Research has dosed the first US participant in Moderna’s phase …
Strategic alliance announced between Recipharm and Exela
Recipharm and Exela have announced that they have entered into an exclusive strategic alliance. The …
