ATLANTIC CITY, March 6 (AP) — The legal fight over Vioxx returned to a New Jersey courtroom Monday, with lawyers for two men who blame the painkiller for their heart attacks telling jurors that its manufacturer, Merck & Company, knowingly concealed its risks from consumers.
Christy D. Jones, the company's lead lawyer, dismissed those claims, attributing the heart attacks to other health problems and saying Merck rigorously studied Vioxx for more than seven years and complied with Food and Drug Administration requirements for new drugs.
"Merck and Merck's scientists and doctors acted reasonably and acted responsibly in the development and testing of Vioxx," she said.
W. Mark Lanier, the lawyer for Thomas Cona, 59, said that the use of Vioxx made people with risk factors for heart disease "walking time bombs," and that Merck executives purposely withheld information about the drug to make more money selling it.
Holding up packets of Vioxx pills, Mr. Lanier said Merck's development and testing of the drug was dominated by marketing concerns instead of medical ones and that Mr. Cona of Cherry Hill, N.J., lived with heart disease risk factors but was not stricken until he began taking Vioxx.
"We have a right to know about the risks," Mr. Lanier told the packed courtroom. "Doesn't matter if it affects sales; doesn't matter if it affects budget; doesn't matter if it affects profit."
Robert J. Gordon, a lawyer for John McDarby, 77, told the jury that Mr. McDarby — who is diabetic — would never have had Vioxx prescribed for his arthritis pain if Merck had properly warned of its dangers.
The two men's cases are being tried as one by Judge Carol E. Higbee of New Jersey Superior Court, who is overseeing more than 5,000 state court cases against Merck. Both plaintiffs appeared in court Monday.
The trial is expected to be closely watched because it is the first involving long-term Vioxx use, and even Merck has said the drug may cause problems over a sustained period.
Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., sold the drug beginning in 1999 as a pain reliever for arthritis and osteoarthritis sufferers who found other pain drugs too harsh on the stomach.
Merck withdrew the drug from the market in September 2004, after a clinical study showed that Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months of use.
Mr. Cona says he took Vioxx for 22 months, and Mr. McDarby for four years.
In her opening statement, Ms. Jones told the jury that 865,000 people a year suffer heart attacks in America and that there was nothing distinguishing about the ones that struck Mr. Cona and Mr. McDarby — or any evidence Vioxx was to blame.
Both had coronary artery disease and other risk factors for heart disease, she said.
Merck willingly provided data from its clinical studies of Vioxx to the F.D.A., which approved it as "safe and effective" on four occasions, said Ms. Jones.
"This was no rush to market. Vioxx was carefully studied — for years — before it was approved," she said.
So far, Merck has won two Vioxx cases and lost a third in courtrooms around the country. Mr. Lanier won a $253 million jury verdict for the widow of a Wal-Mart produce manager who died of a heart attack while taking Vioxx. That verdict is expected to be reduced on appeal.
Another trial is under way in Rio Grande City, Tex.
