'I thought WFH caused my leg pain - but it was my pill that nearly killed me'
Amy Pitt was prescribed the combined pill to prevent her getting pregnant following her IVF birth but then things took a worrying turn for the worse when she was admitted to hospital
A mum put her aching leg down to being inactive while working from home - until doctors revealed she had deadly blood clots 'caused by the pill'. Amy Pitt was prescribed the combined pill in September 2024 to prevent her getting pregnant following her IVF birth and to help her gain weight.
Having had no previous issues, when the 37-year-old began experiencing pain in her left leg in May she thought it was from not being active enough as she often works from home. However, after the civil servant's groin 'bulged' three inches bigger than its usual size and she experienced stomach pain days later she called 111 and was admitted to hospital on May 18.
'Extensive' blood clots were found in the major veins in her left leg that caused a pulmonary embolism, a life-threatening condition where a blood clot blocks an artery in the lungs - which doctors put down to using the birth control.
Due to fly to Greek island of Crete a week later, doctors warned this 'could've been fatal for her' due to the cabin pressure and the mum-of-two says she is 'grateful that she's still here'.
Despite using the same pill safely as a teenager, she now urges other women to 'make sure they're aware of the risks' before starting the oral contraceptive.
The combined hormonal contraception pill causes the potential risk of a blood clot in your leg or lung, which affects one in 1,000 people, according to the NHS. Amy, who lives in Solihull, West Midlands, said: "It's just a bit shocking. My pill could have killed me.
"I work from home and I started feeling the usual aches and pains in my left leg. I thought 'maybe it's because I don't do enough because I often work from home'. I'm not active or walking around but I'm not unfit. It just got gradually worse and it got to the point where it was aching quite a lot. I thought I'd pulled a muscle or something.
"I contacted 111 and they said 'book an appointment, we'll send you a link'. I couldn't use the link but I thought 'I'm just going to leave it. It's not going to be anything serious. I'm wasting their time and they're clearly so busy'.
"It was only the next day I woke up and it was swollen and a bit discoloured. My left leg felt longer than the other one. When I was standing straight, one wasn't touching the floor.
"It's basically the groin bit that was solid and bulging. When I stood up it was very hard to touch. I got a tape measure out and one leg was two or three inches difference in the top of my leg. The pain had also gotten worse in my tummy."
After calling 111 they booked her a hospital appointment and she had blood tests before scans to test for a possible tumour. However, numerous tests and scans revealed the parent had an occlusive thrombus and extensive blood clots in the major veins in her leg, which spread to her lungs and was said to be caused by the pill.
Amy said: "It's just crazy because I'm only young and I've got a blood clot caused by the pill. The doctor said 'your blood clots are so extensive. One of them is completely blocking the blood flow. If you'd flown to Crete without realising due to the altitude due to the oxygen levels on the plane, it could've been fatal for you'.
"I have two children so I was just thinking 'could you imagine if I'd gone on that flight. I could've been stuck in another country'. It's scary.
"They said it was the pill and that I had to stop it today so it went straight in the bin. I should've looked at it before taking it again but you rely on the doctors to tell you what's suitable and what's not.
"I'm so grateful I got checked out when I did. I just knew that I couldn't afford not to get this checked because I've got two children."
The civil servant admitted her leg may stay swollen for up to a year and is currently taking blood thinning medication to allow the blood clots to dissolve.
She now wants to spread awareness to other women about the potentially 'life-threatening' risks. Amy said: "I'm just grateful that I'm still here. Even now there's still potential that more clots could go from the leg to the lungs. I'm constantly on edge. 'Do I need to call the doctor'. It's given me a bit of anxiety.
"It's just waiting for these clots to dissolve and hope that my life will get back to normal. I'm on blood thinners now so any bump to the head you have to call 111 because it can cause internal bleeding. I have to carry an alert card in case I'm in an accident. Thankfully I've had no injuries so far.
"I don't think I was aware this was one of the risks. That's what I've got to take accountability for. In the small print of all these medications it does tell you all the risks. I think I was a bit naive.
"Just make sure you talk to your doctor about the risks and make sure you're aware of the risks yourself. Read the small print. The odds of you getting one are low but the odds are still there. It could be life-threatening."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why the NHS may never use breakthrough Alzheimer's drugs
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) is expected to refuse the use of Alzheimer's drugs lecanemab and donanemab on the NHS, despite their success in slowing the disease's progression. The regulator's decision will reportedly be based on cost-effectiveness, as the drugs are estimated to cost between £20,000 to £25,000, which is considered too high for the limited benefit they provide. Trials showed lecanemab can slow Alzheimer's progression by 27 per cent over 18 months by removing build-ups of the protein beta-amyloid from the brain, while donanemab teaches the body's immune cells to remove the amyloid protein. Around 70,000 adults would have been eligible for treatment if the drugs had been approved. Both drugs have UK drug licenses and are available privately, but Nice estimates that the cognitive decline slowed by donanemab is not enough to justify the cost to the NHS. Alzheimer's Research UK expressed disappointment, stating that while the treatments are not perfect, they represent a vital foundation for further scientific progress.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Lucy Letby supporter claims neo-natal unit where baby serial killer worked was 'not fit for purpose'
The Countess of Chester Hospital's neo-natal unit was 'not fit for purpose' before Lucy Letby started murdering babies, a former nurse who worked there has claimed. Michele Worden said redundancies led to a loss of senior staff and plumbing issues created a 'perfect storm' for care failings. The former advanced nurse practitioner left the Countess after being made redundant in 2007, four years before Letby started working and eight years before her killing spree began. She told the Nursing Times that when the unit was downgraded in around 2006 and stopped caring for very premature babies under 27 weeks, senior nurses were replaced with junior staff who were asked to care for infants 'above their capabilities [and] training.' She said: 'It wasn't just the neonatal unit that wasn't fit for purpose, the whole maternity and paediatric and gynaecology… was not fit for purpose. 'The problems with the sewage and blocked sinks were not just [on] the neonatal unit, it was on the labour ward, it was all over.' Ms Worden said she believed the situation at the Countess of Chester was 'no different' to other NHS hospitals where maternity scandals have been uncovered in recent years. 'Hopefully Lucy will be exonerated,' she said. 'Chester is no different than Shrewsbury, Nottingham, Morecambe Bay. Women and children's healthcare has never been a high priority.' Letby, 38, is serving 15 whole life terms after being convicted of the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of seven more, including one baby girl she tried to kill twice. Plumber Lorenzo Mansutti, estates manager at the Countess, was the only witness called by Letby in her defence at her Manchester Crown Court trial. He admitted drainage problems were a 'weekly' issue at the hospital's 50-year-old Women's and Children's Building and told the jury that he remembered an incident when raw sewage backed up into sinks in the intensive care nursery. But he said it was a 'one off' and insisted that at no point were staff unable to wash their hands because the hospital had 'backup' portable handwashing units on site. The problem was not logged as a formal incident, so no exact date for the incident could be found. Letby's trial heard that none of the seven babies who died collapsed due to a bacterial infection associated with poor sewage. Cheshire police are continuing to investigate the former nurse and last year confirmed they had questioned her in prison in connection with more baby deaths. But, following a presentation from 14 international experts in February, who claim none of the babies were murdered but died due to poor care, there has been a continued chorus of people questioning the safety of her convictions. Letby has twice applied and been refused leave to appeal, but her new legal team have submitted a file of evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice, in a last ditch attempt to get her convictions overturned. They claim the testimony of lead prosecution expert Dewi Evans was biased and that he changed his mind over the method of murder of one of the children murdered by Letby, a boy known as Baby C. Dr Evans has denied this and the Court of Appeal has already dismissed claims he was not suitably qualified or lacked independence. Yesterday it emerged that Dr Evans, who has been subjected to intense trolling online from Letby supporters, had been involved in an online row with one of them - an anonymous statistician who Dr Evans accused of being motivated by a sexual attraction to Letby. According to the statistician, Dr Evans wrote: 'You seem very intense, and it's not unusual for men to have the hots for pretty young blonde females. A nursing uniform is a turn-on for some by all accounts. 'I would suggest you need to get out more, find yourself an available pretty young blonde female, with/without nursing credentials. But one who doesn't go to work intent on murdering her patients.' The statistician said it was 'absurd' to say he believed Letby was innocent because she was 'blonde and pretty' and insisted he had come to that view after reviewing the transcripts of the trial.
