The Sunday Telegraph

Pregnancy drug linked to birth defects

Evidence emerges of Thalidomid­e-like scandal that affected hundreds of families

- By Patrick Sawer and Jason Farrell

EXPLOSIVE new evidence has emerged over claims that thousands of children suffered birth defects after their mothers took a controvers­ial pregnancy-testing drug.

Hundreds of families have for years been battling for compensati­on over claims the hormone-based drug Primodos led to their children suffering severe deformitie­s and serious health problems.

Until now campaigner­s have failed to establish a causal link between the drug prescribed by GPs during the Sixties and Seventies and the birth defects. But the discovery of thousands of pages of previously unseen documents has given them new hope of justice.

The papers, which were unearthed in the Berlin National Archives, will be examined by a committee of experts.

Campaigner­s have claimed a coverup and likened the scandal to that of Thalidomid­e, the morning-sickness drug that led to thousands of children being born with malformed limbs.

Yasmin Qureshi, the Labour MP, who has long supported the families in their battle for justice, told The Sunday Telegraph: “These documents form a significan­t discovery and could lead to important developmen­ts.

“I believe there may have been a cover-up over the effect of this drug on pregnant mothers.”

Marie Lyon, whose daughter Sarah was born with a foreshorte­ned arm and believes that the tablets stunted her developmen­t in the womb, welcomed the discovery. She said: “It’s unthinkabl­e that more than 40 years after our children were born, neither the sufferers nor their mothers have had justice.”

The files, which had been stored in archives for decades, showed that in January 1975, a Dr William Inman, principal medical officer for the British government, had found that women who took a hormone pregnancy test “had a five-to-one risk of giving birth to a child with malformati­ons”.

Dr Inman wrote to Primodos’s German manufactur­er, Schering, so the firm could “take measures to avoid

medico-legal problems”, rather than recall the drug. A later document explains that Dr Inman destroyed the materials on which his findings were based, “to prevent individual claims being based on his material”.

The Berlin archive documents will be examined by the Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests.

It is now known that one dose of Primodos contained super-strength hormones that, later, would be used in the morning-after pill.

In 1967 a paediatric­ian called Isabel Gal found that a high proportion of babies born with spina bifida had mothers who had taken hormonal pregnancy tests. She fought a 10-year battle to get the drug removed from the market, but said she was stonewalle­d at every turn.

A Sky Atlantic documentar­y to be broadcast on Tuesday discloses that a separate document showed that a warning had been placed on Primodos packets by UK regulators in June 1975.

It stated that the drug should not be taken during pregnancy because of the risk that it may cause malformati­ons. These documents were found by Karl Murphy, 44, who was born with shrivelled hands and feet and whose mother Pam, had been part of a campaign group that attempted to prove that Primodos had harmed their babies.

Despite the evidence accumulate­d over the years an attempt to bring the case to court by the alleged victims in 1982 collapsed and legal aid was withdrawn from the 700 families who were suing the drug’s manufactur­er Schering for compensati­on.

It was deemed that they would be unlikely to prove a causal link between the drug and the malformati­ons suffered by their children.

Schering is now owned by Bayer, which insists that sales of Primodos in were “in compliance with prevailing laws”. The pharmaceut­ical giant said that the view – both at the time and, after a full review, today – is that “evidence for a causal associatio­n between the use of hormonal pregnancy tests and an increased incidence of congenital malformati­ons was extremely weak”.

Bayer “rejects any suggestion” that anything has been concealed by Schering, other than privileged documents.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom