Millions of American arthritis sufferers have been forced to find alternatives to Bextra
April 25, 2005 17:56

THE YANKING from the market of both Vioxx and Bextra, members of a new generation of pain relievers called COX-2 inhibitors, has critics ripping raw flesh off the Food and Drug Administration. Inevitably, the agency and pharmaceutical companies are under intense pressure to over-scrutinize new drugs.

Bextra Lawsuits: severe skin rash Stephens Johnson Syndrome? Bextra case inquiry form. http://www.monheit.com/bextra/bextra_case.shtml

Montgomery, AL (PRWEB via PR Web Direct) April 29, 2005 -- In yesterday's press conference, Jere Beasley, founding shareholder at the law firm taking the first Vioxx lawsuit to trial in May, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C, called upon Merck to join him in asking Judge Rochester to lift a protective order which prohibits the release of protected information regarding the drug's dangers. The motion if granted would remove all documents, depositions, and other evidentiary items pertaining to the drug from the Protective Orders that are currently in effect. "We know a great deal about Vioxx that is currently protected," stated Mr. Beasley. "We have documents that the FDA has never seen that go back as far as 1996-1997 that indicate that Merck knew full well that Vioxx would cause heart attacks and strokes. I suspect that the public would be shocked to know that to this very day Merck has never done any clinical trials, no studies that specifically address the issue. "We believe that the public is entitled to a full and complete disclosure concerning what all Merck knew about the dangers and risks associated with taking Vioxx and when they first obtained this knowledge," he continued. "Since Merck has engaged in a public relations effort to discredit our client and law firm in the Clay County, Alabama, Vioxx lawsuit, I believe that the public is now entitled to hear the rest of the story about the drug. Fair play and a need for the public disclosure concerning this drug would be served by removing all Protective Orders and confidentiality concerning Vioxx." According to a motion filed last week by Beasley Allen, Merck violated a protective order by disclosing personal and confidential information to the news media related to Cheryl Rogers and her deceased husband (Circuit or State Court of Clay County in Ashland, Ala, case number CV 03-073, Cheryl Rogers V. Merck). In addition, the motion cites Merck has violated provisions of HIPAA by disclosing personal medical information pertaining to Mr. Rogers. The motion requests that the court vacate its protective order as it relates to documents produced by Merck. Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. has been in the forefront of the effort to have all of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (Bextra, Celebrex and Vioxx) taken off the market since the law firm took on its first case against Merck more than four years ago. Beasley Allen is spearheading the review of over 31,000 claims against the manufacturers of Bextra, Celebrex, and Vioxx, having filed over 160 cases to date.

The European Medicines Agency Thursday said that pending the conclusion of its review of Cox-2 inhibitors, expected in June 2005, Pfizer Inc.'s (PFE) Bextra should not be reintroduced in the European Union market.

Since the April 7 withdrawal in the U.S., Bextra sales have also been suspended in the European Union, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa, the Philippines and Mexico.