Exposed: Vioxx firm's cash payments made to arthritis charities

[Guest guest]

Exposed: Vioxx firm's cash payments made to arthritis charities

By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent

Published: 24 August 2005

Leading arthritis charities have accepted thousands of pounds in

sponsorship and donations from Merck, the drugs company that stands

accused of deliberately suppressing information about the health

risks of its painkiller Vioxx.

The financial links with the pharmaceutical giant have led some

critics to accuse charities of a potential conflict of interest,

particularly where they run helplines offering supposedly impartial

advice on treatments and pain relief to patients.

Vioxx was heavily marketed as the safest and most effective drug for

arthritis and related conditions when it was launched in the UK six

years ago. Arthritis Care, one of the biggest charities in the field,

received £26,000 from Merck in 2004 alone.

Other recipients included the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society,

the National Osteoporosis Society and the British Society for

Rheumatology.

Experts said that the relationship between Merck and arthritis groups

was merely a small part of a bigger problem, with millions of pounds

being spent by drugs companies in return for their corporate logo and

name being featured on websites and literature created by respected

and influential charities.

Sapna Malik, a solicitor representing more than 50 patients who are

suing Merck over Vioxx, said: " I am sure the charities would say that

they act independently of the companies that give them money, but it

is an unhealthy relationship.

" How can a charity that has taken money from Merck and features its

logo, then offer impartial advice if something goes wrong? Drugs

companies want to get something for their money, and the emerging

situation surrounding Merck has brought the way in which this can

prove to be a conflict of interest to the fore. "

Vioxx was launched in the UK in 1999 and it was aggressively marketed

to GPs, hospital consultants and patient groups as a new type of

painkiller that was more effective and safer than old-style anti-

inflammatory drugs. It promised to be particularly useful for

arthritis sufferers.

But it was withdrawn in September last year after it emerged that it

was linked to a doubling of heart attacks and strokes in patients.

Merck is now facing legal action from more than 4,000 patients around

the world, including 300 in Britain, who claim that they or their

relatives suffered or died as a result of Vioxx.

It is estimated to have contributed to the deaths of around 60,000

people.

Merck has also been hit by allegations that it knew as early as 1998

that the drug carried increased risks of cardiovascular problems, but

withheld the information from both the US Food and Drugs

Administration and the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products

Regulatory Agency (MHRA) when applying for licences.

The Independent has now learnt that many of the biggest arthritis

charities have been long-standing recipients of sponsorship and

donations from Merck's UK subsidiary, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD).

The website for Arthritis Care says its creation was " made possible

with support from Merck Sharp and Dohme " .

Arthritis Care was one of several organisations that submitted

evidence to the NHS drugs assessment body, the National Institute for

Clinical Excellence (Nice), in 2000 when it was investigating how

widely Vioxx should be prescribed in Britain. Since the scandal

surrounding Vioxx emerged, Arthritis Care has said it cannot comment

until the MHRA has concluded its investigations. The charity accepted

£10,000 from MSD in 2003 and £26,000 last year, a spokesman said.

He added: " Arthritis Care does not advise or recommend specific

medications to people with arthritis. As a patient representative

body we provide factual information on living with arthritis.

Arthritis Care does not moderate its messages according to the wishes

of external agencies. "

A report by the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society in 2003,The

Painful Truth, called for faster access to new medication and was

sponsored by MSD, which it names on the title page. A spokeswoman

said the charity had " clear rules " about how it accepted money from

the industry and that it would refuse to work with any company that

acted deceitfully.

The British Rheumatology Society, which represents clinicians and

scientists, also has MSD as a commercial sponsor. Isenberg, the

BRS's president, said it did not accept money for endorsing drugs or

companies.

Other organisations were unwilling to publicly criticise the

arthritis charities. One insider said: " It can be difficult as you

desperately need the money and these drugs companies come offering it

on a plate, but I think it's more trouble than it's worth getting

into bed with the pharma industry ... And it's not just arthritis

charities - it's going on everywhere in the voluntary sector,

although it's not shouted about. That tells you how murky it can be. "

MSD was asked to comment on its donations and links to charities, but

the company did not respond.

'Company should be in dock'

, 69, husband of Vioxx taker

Irene was a fit and healthy grandmother who spent every

lunchtime supervising children in the playground of a nearby primary

school.

Yet within two months of being prescribed Vioxx, the 62-year-old

suffered a massive heart attack and died.

It was only when the drug was withdrawn in September last year that

her husband, , made the link with his wife's death. Mr ,

69, from Gillingham, Kent, has now joined the legal action against

Merck, with hundreds of other British people.

He said: " I blame myself because I suggested she went to the doctor

and asked for different medication because the old drugs weren't

doing her any good. It's a nightmare. The drugs company should be up

in the dock for murder. "

Mrs had suffered from rheumatoid arthritis in her knees and

shoulders for some years. Her GP prescribed her Vioxx, in a liquid

rather than tablet form. It worked well, and Mrs obtained a

repeat prescription.

On 1 August 2003, Mr found her slumped at the top of the stairs

in their home. " The doctor said she had had a massive heart attack.

Irene had never had any heart trouble, " he said.

A year after Mrs 's death, Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from

the market. It was only then that Mr made the link.



http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article307885.ece