Questions for merck case

Shortly after its approval, the Centers for Disease Control CDC issued a recommendation that all young girls between the ages of 11 and 12 receive the Gardasil vaccine. Merck has also held receptions for politicians and other officials where they are urged them to pass legislation that, among other things, would make Gardasil mandatory in many states. Merck has seen a big payoff from these efforts. Proposals to mandate the vaccine for girls in middle schools have been offered in 24 states, and one will take effect in Virginia this fall.

Questions for merck case

COX-1 mediates the synthesis of prostaglandins responsible for protection of the stomach lining, while COX-2 mediates the synthesis of prostaglandins responsible for pain and inflammation. Rofecoxib is a selective COX-2 inhibitor, or "coxib".

At the time of its withdrawal, rofecoxib was the only coxib with clinical evidence of its superior gastrointestinal adverse effect profile over conventional NSAIDs.

Fabricated efficacy studies[ edit ] On March 11,Scott S. There is no evidence that Reuben colluded with Merck in falsifying his data. Reuben was also a former paid spokesperson for the drug company Pfizer which owns the intellectual property rights for marketing celecoxib in the United States.

The retracted studies were not submitted to either the FDA or the European Union's regulatory agencies prior to the drug's approval. Drug manufacturer Merck had no comment on the disclosure.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Aside from the reduced incidence of gastric ulceration, rofecoxib exhibits a similar adverse effect profile to other NSAIDs. Prostaglandin is a large family of lipids. And there is no reason to believe that only the balance between quantities of prostacyclin and thromboxane is the determinant factor for vascular tone.

The elevated risk began during the second month on rofecoxib. There was no significant difference in the mortality from cardiovascular events between the two groups, nor was there any significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction between the rofecoxib and naproxen treatment groups in patients without high cardiovascular risk.

Questions for merck case

The difference in overall risk was by the patients at higher risk of heart attack, i. Merck's scientists interpreted the finding as a protective effect of naproxen, telling the FDA that the difference in heart attacks "is primarily due to" this protective effect.

Several years later, when they were shown a Merck memo during the depositions for the first federal Vioxx trial, they realized that these data had been available to the authors months before publication.

The editors wrote an editorial accusing the authors of deliberately withholding the data. NEJM editor Gregory Curfman explained that the quick release was due to the imminent presentation of his deposition testimony, which he feared would be misinterpreted in the media.

He had earlier denied any relationship between the timing of the editorial and the trial. Although his testimony was not actually used in the December trial, Curfman had testified well before the publication of the editorial. All the additional heart attacks occurred in the group at low risk of heart attack the "aspirin not indicated" group and the editors noted that the omission "resulted in the misleading conclusion that there was a difference in the risk of myocardial infarction between the aspirin indicated and aspirin not indicated groups.

Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski, former Merck virologists blew the whistle by filing a qui tam action lawsuit — U.S. v Merck & Co. — in August The scientists allege that the efficacy tests for the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR) were faked. Aug 07,  · Ethical dilemma and business ethics- A case study of Merck and Co. and river blindness August 7, Why did the officials at Merck finally decide to produce the “river blindness” medicine, even though it seemed unlikely that they would recoup their investment? What was the researcher’s question or hypothesis December. Merck & Co. Executive Summary Case Study Goal The goal of this case study is to examine the current operations of Merck & Co. Inc. and determine areas of potential concern, evaluate the effectiveness of the current business model, and propose a plan of action to grow Merck & Co. Inc. to be the largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

The editors also noted a statistically significant 2-fold increase in risk for serious thromboembolic events for this group, an outcome that Merck had not reported in the NEJM, though it had disclosed that information publicly in Marcheight months before publication.

Utilizing the prespecified cutoff date also meant that an additional stroke in the naproxen population was not reported. Furthermore, they said that the additional data did not qualitatively change any of the conclusions of the study, and the results of the full analyses were disclosed to the FDA and reflected on the Vioxx warning label.

They further noted that all of the data in the "omitted" table were printed in the text of the article. The authors stood by the original article.

The different cutoffs increased the reported benefits of Vioxx reduced stomach problems relative to the risks increased heart attacks. Renowned research cardiologist Eric Topol[27] a prominent Merck critic, accused Merck of "manipulation of data" and said "I think now the scientific misconduct trial is really fully backed up".

In the deposition, part of the Vioxx litigation, Dr. Curfman acknowledged that lax editing might have helped the authors make misleading claims in the article.

Merck has placed great emphasis on these studies on the grounds that they are relatively large almost patients and compared rofecoxib to a placebo rather than to another pain reliever. These studies found an elevated death rate among rofecoxib patients, although the deaths were not generally heart-related.

However, they did not find any elevated cardiovascular risk due to rofecoxib. Premenstrual acne[ edit ] A placebo-controlled small short-term study in India of 80 women with premenstrual acne vulgaris acne, were given rofecoxib or placebo for 2 cycles of 10 days suggest that "rofecoxib is effective in the management of premenstrual acne.

Celecoxib had already been approved for this indication, and it was hoped to add this to the indications for rofecoxib as well. An additional aim of the study was to further evaluate the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib.

Read the merck and vioxx case and answer questions1what is, Ask an Expert

In patients taking rofecoxib, versus placebothe relative risk of these events was 1. The results from the first 18 months of the APPROVe study did not show an increased relative risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

Moreover, overall and cardiovascular mortality rates were similar between the rofecoxib and placebo populations. Others have pointed out that "study ," a pre-approval trial, showed a 3-fold increase in cardiovascular events compared to placebo, a 7-fold increase compared to nabumetone another [NSAID]and an 8-fold increase in heart attacks and strokes combined compared to both control groups.

Although VIGOR was primarily designed to demonstrate new uses for rofecoxib, it also collected data on adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Several very large observational studies have also found elevated risk of heart attack from rofecoxib. For example, a recent retrospective study ofelderly Canadians suggested a borderline statistically significant increased relative risk of heart attacks of 1.

Another study, using Kaiser Permanente data, found a 1.Questions for the Merck Case Create a decision tree for Merck. The 2 leftmost branches would identify the alternatives related to licensing Davarink (specifically license versus not to license). This court case raises serious questions for Merck, whose future is now uncertain.

It could have to pay up to $18 billion in damages. Losing the Ernst case is a bad omen for the company. The link between Mr. Drug giant Merck loses negligence case – 21 August, Merck is known for employee friendly policies, they take care of your expectations and even match your salary with market standards in case you are in low bracket, it .

EXCEL LOGISTICS SERVICES Case initiativeblog.com Midland case. Merck & co presentation. 01 - Midland Analysis Case Background Merck & Co. is a global pharmaceutical company which is into drug research and production. Merck also markets its drugs on its own.

Documentos similares a Merck_ExeCSummary. Merck & Company - Evaluating a Drug. Read the Merck and Vioxx case and Answer Questions. initiativeblog.com is the central problem in stakeholder relations?

2. What are the important facts of the case? 3. Identify all the important stakeholders. 4. Choose and explain the ethical model you will employ. Obvious choices are Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Philosophical Pragmatism. Study Questions Cost-Effectiveness Of Gardasil Cervical-Cancer Vaccine By PETER LOFTUS Wall Street Journal August 21, ; Page D3 A new study suggests that giving Merck & Co.'s cervical-cancer vaccine Gardasil to women.

Propecia Lawsuits - Sexual Dysfunction Claims & Litigation History