Showing posts with label Amgen Prolia FDA EMEA Merck Fosamax Bone Density Osteonecrosis Claims Femur and Jaw Jury Trial US Dist Ct NY Bellweather Case Boles Graves Secrest December 11 18 24 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amgen Prolia FDA EMEA Merck Fosamax Bone Density Osteonecrosis Claims Femur and Jaw Jury Trial US Dist Ct NY Bellweather Case Boles Graves Secrest December 11 18 24 2010. Show all posts

Friday, December 24, 2010

Merck's Dr. Thomas A. Musliner's Likely Connection To Fosamax® Trials: 1998 JAMA Article


". . .Among those whose femoral neck T scores were more than −2.0, more fractures occurred in the treatment group (n = 22, 3.3%) than in the placebo group. . . ."

-- JAMA (1998)

We'll see -- but I suspect Dr. Thomas A. Musliner's notes and files, related to this article he co-authored -- are at the heart of the current Graves Fosamax® ONJ Bellwether dispute. Note that -- as early as 1998, this JAMA published study concluded (among other matters) that:

. . . .Alendronate sodium reduces fracture risk in postmenopausal women who have vertebral fractures, but its effects on fracture risk have not been studied for women without vertebral fractures. . . .

The effect of treatment on the risk of clinical fractures depended on initial femoral neck BMD [bone mineral density] (P = .01 for the interaction) (Table 3 and Figure 4). Alendronate significantly reduced the risk of clinical fractures by 36% (RH, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82; placebo-treatment difference, 6.5%; NNT, 15) in women whose initial femoral neck T score was −2.5 or less. However, 4 years of alendronate did not significantly affect risk of clinical fracture in those with higher BMD. We observed a 22% lower risk of clinical fracture in those whose T scores were more than 2.0 SDs below the normal mean (RH, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94; placebo-treatment difference, 3.3%; NNT, 30) (Figure 4). Alendronate did not decrease the risk of fracture among subjects whose initial T scores were greater than −2.5 (RH, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.35). . . .

In post hoc analyses, alendronate reduced the risk of hip fractures by 56% among women with a femoral neck T score of −2.5 or less: 18 (2.2%) in the placebo group vs 8 (1.0%) in the alendronate group (RH, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18-0.97; placebo-treatment difference, 1.2%; NNT, 81). There was no reduction in risk among those whose femoral neck T scores were more than −2.5: 6 (0.4%) in the placebo group vs 11 (0.8%) in the alendronate group (RH, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.70-5.36).

The effect of alendronate on the risk of wrist fractures also varied by baseline femoral neck BMD. There was no significant reduction among women with a T score of −2.5 or less: 38 (4.7%) in the placebo and 34 (4.2%) in the alendronate group (RH, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.40). Similarly, we observed no reduction in risk among women with T scores of −2.0 to −2.5: 20 (2.8%) in the placebo group vs 27 (3.7%) in the alendronate group (RH, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.75-2.4). Among those whose femoral neck T scores were more than −2.0, more fractures occurred in the treatment group (n = 22, 3.3%) than in the placebo group (n = 12, 1.7%; RH, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-4.0; placebo-treatment difference, 1.6%).

Stratification of the results by BMD of the total hip, spine, or other sites indicated that alendronate consistently decreased the risk of nonspine fractures among women with BMD T scores of −2.5 or less but not among women with BMD T scores of more than −2.0. The apparent threshold for a significant effect of treatment on risk of clinical fractures varied by BMD measurement site from a T score of −2.5 or less at the femoral neck and spine to less than −2.0 at the total hip. . . .

In women with low BMDbut without vertebral fractures, 4 years of alendronate safely increased BMD and decreased the risk of first vertebral deformity. Alendronate significantly reduced the risk of clinical fractures among women with osteoporosis but not among women with higher BMD. . . .

Note here that (as a Merck employee!) Dr. Musliner would have -- as of 1998 -- signed on to the idea that there is no reduction in fracture risk, for women who do not have full-on osteoporosis -- i.e., women with "osteopenia". If the fracture risk reduction benefit doesn't exist in women with osteopenia -- and that fact was known to a Merck employed medical expert by 1998 -- this could be a game changer.

It is, I recall, undisputed that Mrs. Graves -- when first put on Fosamax -- had only osteopenia. I think this is the sort of evidence the plaintiffs are driving toward. We'll know by January 3, 2011:



Stay tuned.

Newly Discovered Relevance -- In "Old" Evidence, For Graves' Fosmax® ONJ Case (And, Potentially, Other Cases)?


You'll likely recall that Merck won the Graves Fosamax® ONJ trial last fall. It is now the subject of a pending appeal. It subsequently appears (from a December 22, 2010 electronic filing) that one of the grounds for appeal will be the lately-discovered relevance of evidence in the files of one Dr. Thomas A. Musliner, apparently a Merck expert. The substance of what Dr. Musliner's files contain will be made public by January 3, 2011 -- see below:

. . . .In consideration of letters received by the Court from the Plaintiff on December 17 and 22, 2010 [not yet available in the PACER/ECF filing system] and from Defendant on December 21, 2010 [ditto], the Plaintiff is granted leave to move pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from the November 23, 2010 Judgment.

Plaintiff is directed to file the motion and a support memorandum by close of business on January 3, 2011, and to affix copies of the above-mentioned letters to the memorandum. Defendant is directed to respond by the close of business on January 18, 2011. If Plaintiff chooses to reply, Plaintiff must do so by the close of business on January 24, 2011.

Plaintiff's December 22 letter admits that the central issue of this motion is not evidence newly discovered from the files of Dr. Musliner. Rather, according to the Plaintiff, the issue is when the materiality of the evidence became apparent. Therefore, Plaintiff's request to depose Dr. Musliner is denied. There is no need for oral argument on this motion.

SO ORDERED. . . .

/s/ Judge John F. Keenan,
December 22, 2010
United States District Judge

This motion is likely to lead to an order from Judge Keenan, saying that the Musliner evidence cannot now be admitted, post trial. And that expected ruling will, in turn, be a substantial part of the basis for Mrs. Graves' appeal of the defense verdict.