Author
Listed:
- Robert J. Mitkus
- David B. King
- Mark O. Walderhaug
- Richard A. Forshee
Abstract
The use of thimerosal preservative in childhood vaccines has been largely eliminated over the past decade in the United States because vaccines have been reformulated in single‐dose vials that do not require preservative. An exception is the inactivated influenza vaccines, which are formulated in both multidose vials requiring preservative and preservative‐free single‐dose vials. As part of an ongoing evaluation by USFDA of the safety of biologics throughout their lifecycle, the infant body burden of mercury following scheduled exposures to thimerosal preservative in inactivated influenza vaccines in the United States was estimated and compared to the infant body burden of mercury following daily exposures to dietary methylmercury at the reference dose established by the USEPA. Body burdens were estimated using kinetic parameters derived from experiments conducted in infant monkeys that were exposed episodically to thimerosal or MeHg at identical doses. We found that the body burden of mercury (AUC) in infants (including low birth weight) over the first 4.5 years of life following yearly exposures to thimerosal was two orders of magnitude lower than that estimated for exposures to the lowest regulatory threshold for MeHg over the same time period. In addition, peak body burdens of mercury following episodic exposures to thimerosal in this worst‐case analysis did not exceed the corresponding safe body burden of mercury from methylmercury at any time, even for low‐birth‐weight infants. Our pharmacokinetic analysis supports the acknowledged safety of thimerosal when used as a preservative at current levels in certain multidose infant vaccines in the United States.
Suggested Citation
Robert J. Mitkus & David B. King & Mark O. Walderhaug & Richard A. Forshee, 2014.
"A Comparative Pharmacokinetic Estimate of Mercury in U.S. Infants Following Yearly Exposures to Inactivated Influenza Vaccines Containing Thimerosal,"
Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 735-750, April.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:4:p:735-750
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12124
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:4:p:735-750. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.