Time to Put Infant Reflux Back In Its Box

In all walks of life there are times when you get to enjoy the liberating feeling of being told something you’ve always known to be true, but never quite had the knowledge you needed to confirm your inner convictions. This happens to GPs all the time, because we have convictions and feelings about most of the medicine we encounter on a daily basis, but too little time to research all the myriad quandaries we are left puzzling over. This is where specialists have their use – they are able to dedicate years of study to one or two of the dilemmas we are faced with, and help point us in the right direction.

So it was this week, that one such specialist empowered me with something of a eureka moment over a condition that has been troubling me recently – the increasingly medicalised language surrounding ‘sicky’ babies.

By ‘sicky’ I mean milk-spitting, vomiting, puking babies that leave permanent milky-white stains on the shoulders of all their parents’ best clothes, require investment in dozens of muslin squares and lead to the pulling up of carpets in favour of wipe-clean lino just before the baby miraculously grows out of it. Or to use a lovely, old-fashioned word that we need to keep hold of: possetting.

What I do not mean, is gastro-oesophageal reflux.

Reflux is a highly medicalised word. It is not normal; it implies acid spilling backwards from stomach to oesophagus and (as any pregnant woman knows) painful heartburn. True acid reflux can occur in babies, but it is rare; paediatric gastroenterologists at the conference I attended this week were queuing up to testify as to how unusual it is to have positive tests for acid reflux in possetting babies. This fits with the experience of having a possetting baby (and I have bought my fair share of muslin in my time) – babies are not usually distressed by pain when they posset, and the milk smells just like that – milk, and not acid.

Despite the fact that the entire feed of milk seems to find its way into the washing machine rather than the infant stomach, babies who possett thrive – they put on weight and develop without problem. They are irritable some times, but most babies have times when they are more irritable than their parents would like. If possetting is very common, and irritability is very common, then there will be many babies that experience both, but that doesn’t mean that the possett is the cause of their irritation – or, more  importantly, that treating ‘reflux’ will make any difference to one or either symptom.

Many advice websites give quite a balanced view on this issue, with sites like the BabyCentre and netmums giving lots of reassurance that it is usually normal and will settle on its own before mentioning any medical treatment for it – but they still call it reflux, because the word has entered popular use. Fascinatingly, what I also learned this week is that if parents are told their baby has reflux they are more likely to want medication for it than if the doctor gives the same explanation of the problem, but avoids using the medical label.

Medical labels matter, they create anxiety that your baby has a problem that you should be trying to solve, and can turn a normal, healthy baby into a patient before they have barely got going in life. We need to normalise this process and recapture the word possetting for the nursery and not the doctor’s surgery.

So what of the science behind treatments for ‘reflux’? Well the first thing to say is that true Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease can occur, although it is rare. We need to be concerned about a baby that is failing to thrive (that is, is not growing properly and putting on weight in the normal way), or if the vomit contains blood, or is associated with significant breathing difficulties. These babies may well need to see a paediatrician.

For the vast majority of possetting babies, however, the point in question is this: will any treatments that are offered make any difference to how often my baby is sick, or to how irritable they are? The answer to these two questions is a resounding ‘no.’ Simple measures such as making sure you don’t overfeed, slowing down the feed and winding regularly are all common sense, but changing feed to an expensive ‘stay down’ milk, or low allergy formula strikes me as companies exploiting an artificial niche in the market and evidence of benefit is very limited.

Medications fare no better. Antacids such as Gaviscon are frequently used, as are medicines that stop the stomach making acid in the first place, such as ranitidine and omeprazole (although this is an unlicenced use). When these medicines have been subjected to proper clinical trials they show that they reduce the acidity – but make no difference to how much a baby possetts or how irritable they are.

What is more, there are significant downsides to neutralising the stomach acidity in infants, in the form of increased risk of both gastroenteritis and pneumonia – presumably we evolved to have stomach acid for a reason, and keeping germs at bay may well be part of its role.

So, we have a treatment that doesn’t work, for a condition that doesn’t really exist, and that might make your baby really quite unwell – any takers? Let’s instead try to put reflux back into its box, let healthy babies be healthy babies, and reclaim the word possetting – more of a laundry problem than a medical one!

The Saatchi Bill – Innovation or Obscuration?

What’s the difference between a quack and a pioneer? And how do we allow the next William Harvey or Edward Jenner to flourish, whilst protecting the public?

These are the questions at the heart of the Medical Innovations Bill, the basis of which is the belief that true innovation is being stifled by the fear doctors have of being sued, and that legislation is required to remove this barrier.

I found myself trying to answer these questions in the consulting room the other day when a patient asked me directly if she could have a syndrome I had never heard of before. She has a multitude of symptoms that I have been unable to explain, and her internet search had led her to the syndrome as a possible explanation for her situation. She was kind enough to give me time to do my own research, and we agreed to meet again to discuss it.

The syndrome in question (which I won’t name for fear of saying anything that could be misconstrued as libel) was unorthodox, but not implausible. It suggested that there could be a hormonal imbalance at tissue-level which was not reflected in abnormal blood tests, and high-level hormone supplementation was required.

But tissue-level biochemistry is still poorly understood. If bacteria in your gut can cause ulcers and crystals in your ear lead to vertigo, then I don’t see why some hereto unknown enzyme problem couldn’t lead to a hormone imbalance – unlikely, but not impossible.

Here, however, is where the theory started to break down into quackery: the proponent of the syndrome did not engage in the process of scientific enquiry, but named the condition after himself, set up a lucrative clinic offering untested (potentially harmful) therapy to patients outside the bounds of a clinical trial, and continues to offer such treatment despite being disciplined by his professional body.

When I made my conclusions about my patient’s diagnosis, explaining the background, thankfully she agreed with me.

So I am left with a simple distinction between true innovators and quacks. The former will be motivated by a desire to discover truth through rigorous scientific enquiry and external peer scrutiny, while the latter will come up with plausible, attractive theories and hurry on with treatments without stopping to examine the effects in an unbiased way

This is why we do not need Saatchi’s Bill, and we should strongly oppose it. A true innovator will not want to implement the Bill, while a maverick doctor may seek to exploit it. Their motivations for doing so may be benign – a desire to offer hope to the patient in front of them, perhaps, or an inability to admit the truth that really nothing more can be done – but the outcome will be the same.

The Bill is meant to encourage innovation where there is a dearth of clinical trials, but in such circumstances a true innovator will not complain about the lack of trials, they will create one.

The Bill seeks to provide safeguards so that proposed treatments are brought before fellow clinicians before being used. A true innovator knows the value of proper scrutiny as afforded by an ethics committee.

The Bill seeks to encourage treatments for patients who have no time to wait for clinical trials, but a true innovator will see the long line of future patients, and not allow decisions to be dominated by the suffering of those immediately before them.

Maybe our Health Secretary and Lord Saatchi should talk to someone like Barry Marshall, who jointly won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology with Robin Warren for establishing the link between H pylori and peptic ulcer disease, and was so obsessed with finding the truth that he infected himself with the bacterium to study its effects – now that was true innovation. I wonder what he would think about the Bill?

The post was originally published by Pulse (free registration required)

On the Rebound

My Twitter feed has recently been subject to a series of promoted tweets from a company that sells decongestant nasal sprays. The brand behind these advertisements shall remain nameless (other decongestant nasal sprays are available), but I have been compelled to take to the keyboard because the spray is being recommended for the relief of symptoms of hay fever – which is just bad medicine.

I must make it clear that the company is doing nothing wrong – the spray is licensed for the treatment of hay fever and it is available without prescription, so they are well within their rights to advertise it in this way. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them, though.

 

On the face of it, it seems reasonable to use a decongestant for hay fever – one of the symptoms is nasal congestion, after all. The problem lies in the issue of rebound congestion – sometimes known as rhinitis medicamentosa (medical speak for your medicines made your nose run). The decongestants might make you feel dramatically better in the short-term – as they reduce the blood flow, and hence the swelling, in your nasal passages within minutes – but they don’t do anything about the underlying cause. Worse than that, within a few days your nose can start getting ‘addicted’ to these sprays so that the congestion returns with a vengeance, requiring more of the spray to relieve the symptoms, leading to further rebound congestion and so on.

For this reason all decongestants have strict warnings on them that they are not to be used for more than 7 days. They are mostly used for treating colds, and since these last only a week or so that is not too problematic. For treating acute sinus pain, or relieving earache on a flight, they are fantastic, since these are short-term problems. Hay fever, on the other hand, will last as long as the pollen you are allergic to – April and March for tree pollens, May, June and half of July for grasses. So the adverts promote something that should never be used for more than a week, to treat a condition that will usually last at least 2 months. Even for those patients who have only very intermittent symptoms on high pollen days there are more effective treatments out there, in the form of antihistamines and steroid nasal sprays.

While the ‘S’ word can cause people concern, I sometimes describe steroid nasal sprays as being the polar opposite of decongestants. The latter make you feel better straight away, but do nothing for the underlying condition and will make it worse in the long-term, while steroid sprays do absolutely nothing straight away, but treat the underlying inflammation that is the problem in hay fever and will usually solve the problem in the longer term. The steroid dose is extremely low so that there are no side effects due to absorption into the blood stream. It’s better not to use them all year round if you can help it, due to thinning of the lining of the nose and nose bleeds, but then hay fever is seasonal so most people can have prolonged breaks from treatment.

As a doctor I feel especially powerless to stop people becoming dependent on decongestant nasal sprays; and some do become truly hooked – I have had some patients rely on them for decades. I know that my pharmacy colleagues are very good at warning patients not to take them for more than 7 days, and I can’t imagine any pharmacist recommending them for hay fever, but patients don’t have to speak to any health care professional to buy these products. They are categorised under General Sales Licence, which means that you can just drop them in your basket from the shelves of a supermarket and take them to the checkout – no-one will notice that you buy them every week, or advise you that it might be causing you such a problem.

How such a product was ever made so readily available, or achieved a licence for hay fever, I shall never know. There is no prospect of changing this, but perhaps by writing about it I can steer one or two people away from turning their seasonal allergy into a year-round problem of rebound congestion.

Combined Oral Contraceptives: Old Scare, New Data

I vaguely remember the pill scare of 1995; acres of media coverage, scary headlines and confused messages – I recall thousands of women stopping their contraception overnight for fear of a clot forming by morning, and scores of unplanned pregnancies as a result – but then maybe the way the statistics from the fallout were reported was as unreliable as the reporting of the science behind the original story. I was working as a junior doctor on a medical ward at the time; I didn’t need to think that much about contraception which might account for why my memory is hazy.

There was another pill scare this weekend, and I’m glad to say that there wasn’t too much media hysteria this time, but the story is still important and it will have caused many women to double-check their pill against the list in the newspaper – some will have been relieved to find their chosen brand to be in the clear, and other will be wondering what it means for them. The Mail, of course, couldn’t resist using the word Deadly’ in its headline, and relished the idea of ‘Every GP in Britain’ being told to do something, but the print of the article was reasonably measured, perhaps reflecting the fact that this is not a new story; far from it, there was no new research here, just an updated review of what we learned back in 1995 and some slightly adjusted figures.

It’s not bad to be reminded, though, that the contraceptive pill, like every other medicine we ever prescribe, is not entirely risk-free, and that both the risks and benefits of the pill do vary slightly with the brand. The review, by the European Medicines Agency, looked at the risk of blood clots, both in veins (Deep Vein Thrombosis or DVT and Pulmonary Embolism or PE) and arteries (stroke), which are two of the biggest safety concerns associated with the combined pill.

The first thing to say is that the risk of a clot is only increased with combined pills that contain oestrogen and progesterone (usually taken for 21 days followed by a 7 day gap), and that there is no risk of clots associated with the mini-pill, which contains progesterone only (eg Micronor, Cerazette or Cerelle) and are usually taken daily without a break.

We have known for a long time that the combined pills increased the risk of DVT, but what was new information in 1995, and caused the scare, was that the risk was different with different pills. At that time evidence emerged that older pills, like Microgynon, were safer than the newer pills, like Marvelon. Most women found that the older versions suited them just fine, but some women felt better on the newer pills – perhaps their skin was in better condition, or they had less PMT – and so these had become quite popular. What ensued nearly 20 years ago was a rather panicked move away from these pills, before the pendulum reset itself as people realised that the increased risk was not that great, and having good skin or not turning into a growling  bear on a monthly basis was actually quite important.

More recently there have been newer pills still – Yasmin being the most notable example – that promised to suit women even better than the older ‘new’ pills. There is no doubt that doctors and patients have been swayed a little by the idea that these pills are somehow ‘more feminine’, when actually most women feel no inhibition to their sense of womanhood on the tried and tested varieties, and the newest pills also seem to carry the slightly higher risk of DVT.

So what are the risks? Well the important thing here is to pay most attention to the absolute risk linked with each pill, and for each woman to ask if that is a risk she is prepared to take in order to find a reliable contraception that suits her. The headlines often quote the relative risk – ‘They are believed to double the risk compared to older varieties’  is more eye-catching than ‘About 1 in a 1000 women will develop a DVT’. While comparing the risk between different pills is important in deciding which pill to try, once you have decided which pill to use the fact that there might be a less risky pill out there becomes an irrelevance – what matters is whether you are comfortable with the level of risk attached to the pill you are taking.

The EMA review, therefore, is a useful reminder that no woman should start the combined pill without a discussion with her doctor about the risk of DVT, and that we should always start with the lowest risk pill unless there is a very good reason not to. It is also instructive to look at the estimates of risk given in this new review, as they are higher across the board (even for women who are not on the pill) than the estimates currently provided in the British National Formulary that most GPs in the UK will be using. I have tabulated the figures below for comparison – and I shall now be converting to the EMA figures, since I would always rather over-estimate a risk like this than under-estimate it.

 

The worst risk, therefore, is 120 per 100,000 – which is not insignificant, although it is worth remembering that this still means that 99,880 women out of every 100,000 on the highest risk pills will not get a DVT. The risk will also be lower if you have no risk factors – such as a family history of DVT/PE, smoking or being significantly overweight. When a DVT does occur it is usually in the first year – which supports the fact that if you are already well established on one of these pills there is no need to panic, and certainly no reason to stop the pill without first speaking to your doctor.

A final note about arterial clots (stroke); this was also reviewed in the EMA report, and although they did not report on the absolute risk other than it being low, it was reassuring that there was no difference in the rate of arterial problems between the different pills.

The Polypill – Holy Grail or Fool’s Alchemy?

The Daily Express headline of an all-conquering Polypill waiting in the wings, ready to save thousands of lives and rescue the NHS finances, has become almost an annual event. This year’s offering is no disappointment, and its particularly misleading headline –Ten pence pill could help you live 8 years longer was rewarded with a front page spread.

The study that provided this exciting headline was based in India, and compared the use of a single combination pill with usual care for patients with established heart disease, or felt to be at risk of heart disease. The combination pill contained aspirin, simvastatin for lowering cholesterol, and two blood pressure drugs – lisinopril and either atenolol (a beta-blocker) or hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic). Far from showing any reduction in heart problems, however, the study actually only demonstrated  increased adherence to medication in the treatment group, and a modest reduction in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol compared with the control group. There was also the slightly awkward bias in the study whereby the treatment group received their medication for free, while the control group had to pay for any medication they received – a factor which could surely account for all the study findings at a stroke.

Whenever I hear of yet another study involving the Polypill, I find myself wondering why on earth they bother. Even if they finally break the mould and actually demonstrate benefit that means something to patients – rather than just improving the numbers that doctors measure – are GPs and their patients really going to want to start taking the 4 in 1 pill?

If you needed to be on that exact combination of tablets then there is no doubt that to swallow one pill rather than 4 would make life easier, but does this outweigh the downsides of coupling together 4 very different drugs into one preparation? None of these tablets will make a patient feel any better – they are only used to reduce the risk of something happening in the future, such as a heart attack or a stroke. The biggest issue when starting them, therefore, is side effects. No side effects is the goal, but what are the chances of someone having no side effects if they start 4 drugs all at once? And if they do get a side effect, how are they to know which tablet is causing it?

Some side effects are typical for a type of drug, an irritating cough can occur with lisinopril for instance, and so the doctor may well be able to guess the culprit – but a side effect with even one component in the Polypill will mean having to divide it into its constituent parts and start again. The prospect of having to unpick this magic medicine on a regular basis does not fill me with enthusiasm.

Then there is the need to respond to the ever-changing face of medicine. Aspirin, for instance, was used extensively in patients who were thought to be at risk of heart disease, but more recently the advice has changed to only use it in those with established disease. In fact the twists and turns of advice for this particular drug has an extensive history which caused me to write an early post in this blog. All it would take would be for the advice to change once more, and patients on the Polypill would need to be recalled, with their medicines changed, resulting in all the attendant uncertainty, anxiety and confusion that inevitably accompanies changes in medication.

The current direction of travel in healthcare is towards personalised medicine, with an emphasis on tailoring a drug cocktail to match the exact physiological needs of an individual’s biology. While I would prefer that there was an equal focus on tailoring medications to an individual person’s informed choice and preference, it can only be a good thing to try to personalise treatment in this way. The Polypill seeks to take us in the opposite direction and I remain deeply sceptical about any benefit it may have for our society.

The researchers behind this work are boundless in their enthusiasm, however, and so future studies will no doubt pop up from time to time  – well, at least it keeps a journalist employed at The Daily Express!

Intrinsa? Intrinsically Wrong

Few of us will have noticed the change in status of the testosterone patch Intrinsa last October. As a GP I have no patients who have been affected by it, and while a treatment for the controversial diagnosis of Female Sexual Dysfunction might be significant for a small number of women, it is hardly a life-threatening condition or a major public health priority. However, we would do well to take note, because it heralds a new low in the behaviour of the pharmaceutical industry as they try to maximise profit, and has implications not only for the resources of the NHS, but also patient safety.

Intrinsa is a testosterone patch, and was one of the few such products licensed for use in women. In October 2012 Warner Chilcott, the company that held the rights to market Intrinsa, took the unusual step of voluntarily withdrawing its product licence ‘for commercial reasons’. Given the high costs involved in obtaining a product licence in the first place, it is hard to see how this could bring commercial benefit – until you follow the story a bit further.

Ben Bryant of The Daily Telegraph has been drawing attention to the activities of the pharmaceutical industry in a series of articles in the last two months, and has highlighted the situation with Intrinsa in his latest article. What Warner Chilcott have done is to maximise profit by exploiting the financial regulations surrounding licensed and unlicensed medicines – with the former having to abide by an agreed price cap while the latter exists in the mysterious world of the unregulated ‘specials’ market, where the drug company can charge whatever they want – frequently at outrageously high prices.

Within a month of the change, the ‘last batch’ of Intrinsa (sufficient for ‘the foreseeable future’) was acquired by another company HFA Healthcare, who were quick to point out their altruistic motive to ‘ensure continuity of medication for patients,’ but rather more reticent about mentioning the price hike – from £26 per pack to £395 per pack.

We have been here before with far more significant drugs – Epanutin was acquired by Flynn Pharma last year, with a 23-fold rise in the price and a great deal of worry for patients. What is new about is scenario, however, is the loss of the licence. A Licence is not just a mechanism to allow the pharmaceutical company to promote its product; it is a source of protection for both the doctor and patient. It provides security that a medicine has been properly tested, has safety data approved by an independent body (in this case the European Medicines Agency), and has been deemed to be effective in treating the condition in question. It is the medical equivalent of a Kite Mark.

The absence of a licence means prescribing a drug off-label. Doctors are used to doing this where treatment is required and no licensed product exists – the patient cannot always wait for the time-consuming processes involved – but this is because a licence has never existed, not because it has been withdrawn for purely commercial reasons. When a doctor does prescribe off-label in this way a doctor has to take extra responsibilities, or, to quote the MHRA:

The responsibility that falls on healthcare professionals when prescribing an unlicensed medicine or a medicine off-label may be greater than when prescribing a licensed medicine within the terms of its licence.

Put crudely, if something goes wrong you can’t sue the drug company as the medicine was used in a way that they did not recommend. The patient is more likely to sue the doctor, or not be able to get compensation at all if there is a problem; the drug company is able to wash its hands, and say ‘nothing to do with us.’ It is the equivalent of selling an electrical appliance, but withholding its 1 year warranty ‘on commercial grounds’, only the patient isn’t able to shop elsewhere, since there is no other licensed product to turn to.

Withdrawing a licence is not just a matter of finances, a way of a company balancing its books or a headache for the NHS drug budget – it is a patient safety issue first and foremost and this practice needs to be investigated and stopped in its tracks before the industry tries it out again – this time with a drug that really matters.

The Real Cost of the Epanutin Scandal

Last year I published two posts on the scandalous price rise in the cost of Epanutin (phenytoin), an important treatment for epilepsy. You can read the posts here and here, but in short, here is the gist of what happened: Pfizer, the manufacturers of Epanutin, struck a deal with Flynn Pharma, a far smaller pharmaceutical company. Pfizer would continue to make the drug in the same way as before, but Flynn would now re-brand it, and in the process they would increase the price over 23-fold. The NHS would be held to ransom on the matter because the danger of switching a patient with epilepsy to a competitor brand was far too dangerous for the patient – and anyway there are no competitor brands.

At the time I was incensed by the huge unnecessary extra cost to the NHS of £44m per annum – and I still am – but over the last 6 months I have been deeply humbled by comment after comment posted on the blog by those who are bearing the real cost of this outrage – patients. 

I felt that these patient stories deserved a post of their own. We need to listen to them. Pharmaceutical companies need to hear these voices when they make business decisions in boardrooms, far away from the lives of the patients they tell us they care about. Politicians need to hear these voices when they consider the rights of big business against the care of the patient. The media need to listen too – perhaps pausing in their current obsession for exposing every possible fault in the NHS, and considering how patient care can be affected just as much by private companies and political policy as by frontline workers struggling to cope. Here are some of these voices:

Jeremy Whitehead had a fit when his brand was changed (this may not have been the Flynn Pharma change, but shows the danger of changing brands), and has decided to give up driving as a result:

I have had very little trouble until recently when the 100mg capsules of which I took 3 were presented in a different packaging labelled Epanutin but with a Malta licence. I started taking these and had a very bad fit shortly afterwards. Thank God I was at home and not driving my car.

I am within a couple of months of my 70th birthday and can’t put up with much of that sort of thing any more. I assume that it was the variation in brand which triggered my attack, but my main concern is that there will be other people in my situation who might not be so lucky, they could be driving around and have a horrible accident. I have returned my licence to the DVLA.

Tom McLaughlan expressed the anxiety that many patients on this drug are feeling:

What if the outcry against their pricing strategy were to result in Flynn pulling the drug?

I’ve been taking it for 31 years. Fifteen or so years ago my GP tried to take me off it but within hours of the transfer process being completed and me being on the new drug alone I had two seizures. So I went straight back on to the Epanutin and have stayed with it ever since. I do not want to face the likelihood of seizures again…

It is hard to underestimate the consequences of having a seizure in epilepsy that has otherwise been well controlled, and therefore the anxiety that can be created even by the possibility of this happening – Ian Bates knows this all too well:

There has been two times that my Neurologist has tried to remove/change this medication but each time it has led to me being hospitalised and nearly causing my death. Therefore I understand the consequences of removing or even altering the drug slightly.

Dawn Stocks describes the effect of a lack of communication about the change (as a GP I am especially humbled here as I am sure we could have done this better with our own patients):

I have stuck to Pfizer epanutin from the early 1980s up until last week when I received my prescription and noticed the Flynn Pharma label. I have had no warning from the pharmacy or my GP about the change and, like most epileptics, have severe consequences of not receiving the same brand medication. Panic set in which makes seizures worse .

Richard had a similar experience and laments the lack of communication from the company to the patient:

There should be a duty of care on the supplier to explain all of this via the GP and pharmacist. I have received absolutely no communication over this matter from my GP. The pharmacist (Boots) had a copy of a letter from the manufacturer which I requested a copy of, but was informed that I could not have a copy as this was the pharmacist’s only copy.

There have been supply problems, and it is hard to see that this is unrelated to the change since this has never been a problem before with Epanutin. Sean Loftus explains:

Went to a large high street chemist earlier this month & they were unable to supply the full prescription…I’m now low on epanutin, less than a weeks supply.

He is not alone – here’s a comment from Ginger:

I am quite happy to accept either Epanutin or Phenytoin Sodium Flynn Pharma, but a bigger problem has arisen – both are in short supply!

Just before Christmas I could not get my prescription made up by my usual pharmacy, and had to phone around until I found one with half the amount I needed. This was the 2nd time in 18 months.

Rosie has had similar problems, with real reasons to doubt the reliability of her medication:

I have taken these since 1974 and my GP is not happy about prescribing them because of the cost.I found my local branch of Boots would not supply the Flynn brand against the prescription that my GP gave me with Pfizer on. I have had a permanent struggle with the change of name. Now that the prescription has been updated on the computer to Flynn I am getting left overs of Epanutin from various chemists still made by Goedecke, Germany supplied by Parke Davis with a Pfizer label over that. They must be old as the use by date is January 2014.

When we listen to these stories we must remind ourselves that we are not talking about uncertainties over a drug that you could take or leave – this is epilepsy – serious medicine. I want to thank all those who have taken the time to comment, and to readers for listening.