Merck's big push on Vioxx revealed

MARKETING documents reveal Australian staff at pharmaceutical giant Merck planned to spend $14.5 million on promotional "tactics" for its anti-arthritis drug Vioxx in one year, including $6 million on free samples.

MARKETING documents reveal Australian staff at pharmaceutical giant Merck planned to spend $14.5 million on promotional "tactics" for its anti-arthritis drug Vioxx in one year, including $6 million on free samples.

Budget plans for 2002 and 2003 tendered to the Federal Court detail for the first time the amount of money spent by Merck, Sharp and Dohme in order to market Vioxx as a drug that has "power without compromise".

The marketing plans also reveal the scores of expensive strategies the company undertook to get doctors, patients, experts and even government on board with its blockbuster drug.

This includes $45,000 for a sales staff motivational CD and $1million for a patient reward program in 2002; and $375,000 for "brand reminders" for doctors and receptionists in 2003.

Tendered by the plaintiff in the class action against the US company and its Australian subsidiary, they detail $150,000 for the Arthritis Foundation of Australia to "influence messages to patients, physicians and government".

Both plans also show Merck spent thousands of dollars to set up a website called familygp.com.au -- which is still online today -- to encourage better relationships with doctors and patients.

The 2002 marketing plan says the objectives of setting up the site is to inform patients about the "benefits" of Vioxx. "Merck has some influence on the content of the sites," it reads.

"We could modify patients' and perhaps doctors' behaviour through the sites," it adds.

Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson -- representing more than 1000 Australians -- blames Vioxx for his heart attack in December 2003. He alleges Merck knew about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx and played them down long before it voluntarily recalled the drug in September 2004.

Merck is fighting the class action, claiming there is no definitive scientific proof that Vioxx causes heart attacks.

The marketing plans, approved by marketing director Penny Dobson, national sales manager Jenny Nethery and Vioxx's marketing managers Jane Paterson and Glenn Montgomery, show the objectives of the company was to achieve $95 million worth of "ex-factory" Vioxx sales in 2002 and $78 million in 2003.

The company aimed to spend $6 million in samples and $8.5million in promotion in 2002, and $5.84 million in promotion and $4.1 million on samples in 2003.

They also expose the "blocking strategy" planned by Merck to minimise any damage from the launch of new drugs by their competitors. This included booking up all the expert speakers in the area to "Merck meetings" at the time of any opposition product launch.

The 2002 marketing plan details the company's response to the release of the drug Valdecoxib, labelling it "activities to manage" its competitors. "(A) war game will be conducted in April to anticipate and respond to moves on Valdecoxib," it reads.

"As a blocking strategy; increase (Vioxx) sampling around Valdecoxib PBS timing ... explore introducing a second Rofecoxib (Vioxx) brand to fragment and crowd market, and diminish impact of Valdecoxib launch."

Ms Dobson told the court this week that such blocking strategies were "common" competition practices in the industry.

The trial continues.