Merck has won Vioxx trial #7 as a NJ jury rejected the claims of a patient who blamed her heart attack on nearly three years of Vioxx use. The jury found that Merck acted responsibly in informing the medical community about the benefits and risks of the drug.

The plaintiff, Elaine Doherty of Lawrenceville, NJ, said that she took Vioxx 25 mg daily from June 28, 2001, until she suffered a heart attack on Jan. 19, 2004, at age 65. She continued to take the medicine until Merck voluntarily withdrew it from the market in September 2004.

“The company acted responsibly, the science was on our side, and the jury agreed,” said Jim Fitzpatrick of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a member of Merck’s defense team in Doherty v. Merck. “Mrs. Doherty would have suffered a heart attack whether she was taking Vioxx or not. Before ever hearing of Vioxx, Mrs. Doherty had multiple risk factors for heart disease, including high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity.”

The verdict was the third time in four cases that a NJ jury found in Merck’s favor on a plaintiff’s product liability claim.

“Merck is pleased with the jury verdict,” said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. “Today’s outcome reinforces our commitment to defend these cases on a case-by-case basis.”

Merck also made news yesterday with the departure of Bradley Sheares, who served as president of U.S. human health since 2001. Mr. Sheares was replaced by Adam Schechter, who previously served as general manager of Merck’s Zetia/Vytorin partnership with Schering-Plough