Merck Opens New Front in Cox-2 War

Regular readers of BrandweekNRX (both of you) will know my position in the Cox-2 War (I’m in favor of Cox-2s being on the market as long as their risks are adequately disclosed). You can catch up here. Now Merck has opened a new front in the battle with Arcoxia, a Cox-2 approved elsewhere on the planet but not the U.S. Merck has a study showing that Arcoxia has a lower rate of gastrointestinal events than diclofenac (the generic of Voltaren). So what? First, this is but one of what will likely be a long, incremental process of the rehabilitation of Cox-2s. Pfizer already throws tens of millions of dollars behind its Cox-2, Celebrex, which remains on the U.S. market. Second, it’s obviously to Merck’s advantage to use its sales force’s existing Cox-2 knowledge from the Vioxx franchise—could a transition to Arcoxia really be all that difficult? (Disclosure: I’ve taken diclofenac as an anti-inflammatory and I think it rocks!)

Comments

[bryan gary]

A study showing Arcoxia has a lower rate of GI side effects than diclofenac is particularly amusing...

Among the conventional NSAIDs, it's generally accepted that diclofenac (either the sodium salt ala Voltaren or the potassium salt flavor known as Cataflam) is the most effective and the absolute worst offender in terms of GI side effects. Conventional wisdom - for those who have cast iron stomachs - diclofenac does indeed rock!

So a study designed to demonstrate Arcoxia's superiority in GI safety is research designed with absurdly nominal expectations.

Not that that's anything new - it's just unusually obvious.