Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
SynopsisD

Health Canada lukewarm on Vioxx panel findings

Sally Murray
CMAJ August 16, 2005 173 (4) 350; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050901
Sally Murray
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figure

Figure. The rofecoxib molecule. Photo by: dominionpaper.ca

An expert panel is recommending the reintroduction of rofecoxib (Vioxx) on the Canadian market, but Health Canada is unsure about some of the panel's evidence and won't make a decision until fall.

Rofecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, was voluntarily withdrawn worldwide by manufacturers Merck & Co. in September 2004 after a study showed patients taking the drug on a long-term basis face twice the risk of a thrombotic event compared with patients receiving placebo (N Engl J Med 2005;352[11]:1092-102).

The panel, convened by Health Canada, examined data from a wide range of sources, including a new meta-analysis of 138 studies on the cardiovascular risk of COX-2 inhibitors by researcher Dr. Colin Baigent.

Dr. Marc Berthiaume, Director of the Marketed Pharmaceuticals Division at Health Canada, is not sure about the results. “Some of the choices [Baigent] made can have skewed some of his findings: he lumped together short- and long-term findings for patients on NSAIDs.” Berthiaume says Health Canada hasn't taken an official position on the study.

In defence of his study, Baigent, a senior scientist at the Clinical Trials Service Unit at Oxford University, says that “ideally we'd like individual patient data … . When you've only got tabular results you can only group the short-term and long-term studies together.” He adds, “What we desperately need is to have the data publically available.” The study is being considered for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

The expert panel chair, Dr. Andreas Laupacis, said the paper is “one of the highest quality of systematic reviews we've seen.” Dr. Claire Bombardier, lead author on the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research (VIGOR) study, hasn't seen the whole study but says it offers “strong evidence and a balanced view.”

If the panel is correct, was Merck's decision to withdraw rofecoxib premature? Berthiaume doesn't think so. “Their decision was based on the safety information available and it was a good decision,” he says. Merck Frosst Canada spokesperson Marlene Gauthier agrees: “At the time there seemed to be alternatives that had less risks.”

Reintroducing rofecoxib to the market now depends on Merck Frosst's willingness to resubmit the drug for approval and on Health Canada's approval, which could take 2–18 months.

Some patients are clamouring for the drug to be reintroduced, says Bombardier. Laupacis concurs: “Rheumatologists find some people respond to some drugs and not the others … they want choice.”

While Health Canada debates what to do about rofecoxib, legal proceedings are going ahead, says lawyer Tony Merchant of Regent-based Merchant Law Group. At least 7 suits have been filed, including a 7-province action filed in the Federal Court of Canada naming the federal government as co-defendant.

Merchant believes that the failure to disclose and label rofecoxib properly was the equivalent of failure of informed consent for patients involved.

Merck plans to defend itself on a case-by-case basis.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 173 (4)
CMAJ
Vol. 173, Issue 4
16 Aug 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Health Canada lukewarm on Vioxx panel findings
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Health Canada lukewarm on Vioxx panel findings
Sally Murray
CMAJ Aug 2005, 173 (4) 350; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050901

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Health Canada lukewarm on Vioxx panel findings
Sally Murray
CMAJ Aug 2005, 173 (4) 350; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050901
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The changing ecology of avian flu
  • Applying the 2005 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations: 4. Managing uncomplicated hypertension
  • A newborn requiring selective bronchial intubation
Show more Synopsis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drug regulation
    • Drugs: adverse reactions

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire