Drug firm staff 'stalled price and safety probe'

AUSTRALIAN staff of pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co sought to delay a federal government review into the safety and pricing of its blockbuster anti-arthritis drug Vioxx.

AUSTRALIAN staff of pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co sought to delay a federal government review into the safety and pricing of its blockbuster anti-arthritis drug Vioxx.

Internal documents tendered to the Federal Court reveal one strategy pursued by Merck, Sharp and Dohme staff was to "delay the review process" conducted by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee into Vioxx and its rival drugs.

The inquiry was set up in 2002 to review the latest evidence on the safety of the new anti-inflammatory drugs, including Vioxx, and how much government should subsidise the products.

An internal Merck briefing, tendered to the court by the plaintiff in the class-action against the company, revealed staff thought the review -- and the concerns over links between Vioxx and heart attacks it could bring up -- may have resulted in the government deciding to contribute less money in subsidising Vioxx. "We believe the government could use the review to support a substantial price reduction for rofecoxib (Vioxx) and (its rival) celecoxib (Celebrex)," the memo says.

"Delay the review process on the basis that the timelines are unrealistic and the review is not the most rigorous approach that could be undertaken."

Other internal documents showed that in 2003 the PBAC was unable to reach a decision on the cost-effectiveness of Vioxx and requested more information from Merck, Sharp and Dohme. "One of the benefits of delay is that any price reduction incurred as a result for the review process is also delayed," it reads.

Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson -- representing more than 1000 Australians -- claims Vioxx caused his heart attack in December 2003. He is suing the US company Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary Merck, Sharp and Dohme for compensation.

The trial continues.