A state court jury in New Jersey returned a defence verdict in Humeston v. Merck by rejecting the claims of an Idaho resident who used Vioxx.

"We presented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence. Frederick Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking Vioxx or not. In addition, Merck presented evidence that it carefully studied Vioxx before and after FDA approval, and consistently made the results of those studies available to the FDA and the medical community," said Jim Fitzpatrick of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a member of Merck's defence team.

Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck, "Merck is satisfied with the jury verdict. There will be other Vioxx trials and we will vigorously defend them one by one over the coming years. Merck acted responsibly, from performing extensive clinical trials comparing Vioxx to NSAIDs or placebo in almost 10,000 patients prior to approval, to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market, to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did."

The plaintiff in the case is Frederick Humeston, a US Postal Service employee from Boise, Idaho, who alleged that he suffered a heart attack on Sept. 18, 2001, at the age of 56, as a result of intermittent use of Vioxx over a two-month period. Mr. Humeston was hospitalised for two days following his heart attack, returned to work approximately two weeks later, and, according to his wife's testimony, was not placed under any restrictions by his doctors, informs a company release.

Merck & Co. Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company dedicated to putting patients first. Established in 1891, Merck discovers, develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines in more than 20 therapeutic categories.