At issue in the case is whether a pharmaceutical company can be held
liable for failing to warn about a health risk associated with its
drug when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected the
company's proposal to add a warning label to the medication about
the risk.
Fosamax helps prevent and treat osteoporosis, a condition that can
lead to bone fractures, in women who have gone through menopause.
Conversely, it may increase the risk of fractures in the thigh bone
or just below the hip joint.
Sales of Fosamax, which is also available as a generic drug, totaled
$241 million in 2017, according to Merck.
Merck in 2008 submitted data to the FDA suggesting Fosamax might be
linked to certain bone fractures, but the FDA rejected its proposal
to add a warning label to the medication, according to court papers.
After further study of the issue, the agency ordered manufacturers
to revise labels to include a warning in October 2010, which Merck
did the following January.
Hundreds of Fosamax users sued New Jersey-based Merck alleging the
drug caused them to suffer serious thigh bone fractures and that the
company failed to warn of the risk. The number of cases has swelled
to more than 1,000.
Merck tried to have the cases thrown out, arguing that the FDA's
rejection of its proposed warning label should preempt the lawsuits.
[to top of second column] |
A federal trial court in New Jersey sided with Merck, but in March
2017, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
allowed the claims to proceed to trial, saying that a jury could
find that the FDA had objected only to Merck's phrasing of the
proposed warning label and might have approved "a properly worded
warning" about Fosamax.
Backed by President Donald Trump's administration, Merck asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case, saying the appeals court ruling puts
drug companies in an impossible position.
"Even if they cooperate with the FDA, share their safety data, and
follow the agency's direction to 'hold off' on adding label
warnings, they still cannot escape costly, burdensome tort
litigation complaining about those labels," Merck said.
(Corrects paragraph 8 to show lower court ruling was in March 2017,
instead of March 2018)
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |