Medical manoeuvres of Vioxx representatives revealed

AUSTRALIAN sales staff of the pharmaeutical giant that produced anti-arthritis drug Vioxx were trained to get past "difficult" receptionists so they could spruik their products to doctors.

AUSTRALIAN sales staff of the pharmaeutical giant that produced anti-arthritis drug Vioxx were trained to get past "difficult" receptionists so they could spruik their products to doctors.

The Federal Court was told Merck, Sharp and Dohme taught its sales representatives how to deal with receptionists at medical clinics who would not let them see doctors. They were also instructed how to deal with doctors who did not want to see the sales representatives.

Merck, Sharp and Dohme and its parent company Merck & Co are being sued by more than 1000 Australians, led by Graeme Peterson, who claims the drug caused his heart attack in December 2003.

Mr Peterson claims the company knew about the cardio-vascular risks of Vioxx and played it down long before it voluntarily recalled the drug in September, 2004.

Merck is fighting the class action, claiming it did nothing wrong. Merck, Sharp and Dohme employee Penny Dobson, who was responsible for the marketing of Vioxx and other drugs in Australia from 2001 to 2003, yesterday told the court the company spent weeks training new sales staff in dealing with many different situations that might arise.

The court heard this included a scenario where doctors caused problems for staff they had not met before.

"They (the doctors) played with them a little bit sometimes," Ms Dobson said.

She also said any sales training on a product would be a "hard slog" and concentrated on key messages but denied staff were taught to recite specific lines.

"We used to pride ourselves on the training that our representatives received," Ms Dobson said. "We didn't put words in their mouths. We found that it didn't work."

Ms Dobson, called by Merck, said she could not recall or was not "100 per cent sure" in answer to a number of questions about the way Vioxx marketing worked. She claimed it was because the questions were about issues prior to her tenure.

During her cross examination by the plaintiff's lawyers, Ms Dobson was asked whether she was aware of a Vioxx "familiarisation program" conducted by the company for doctors. She replied it would be unusual for the company to have one.

But when Julian Burnside, acting for the plaintiff, showed her an invitation for a familiarisation program on the drug for chemists, her memory was jogged.

"I had not forgotten at all; it just refreshed my memory bank, that's all," Ms Dobson said.

She also told the court that the familiarisation programs on Vioxx were not marketing exercises but "more of a pharmacy education exercise".

The trial continues.