Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Aluminum Phosphate vs. Aluminum Hydroxide (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1392006-aluminum-phosphate-vs-aluminum-hydroxide.html)

dinahx 10-25-2013 07:16 AM

So I was looking into Boostrix (GSK) vs. Adacel (Sanofi) & it appears they use two different types of Aluminum. Sanofi is using AlPhosphate, 0.33mg (Tdap) & GSK is using AlHydroxide 0.4mg (Tdap)

Then I went to CHOP's page & it seems that only 1% of an ingested dose of Aluminum is absorbed. So those dosages would be akin to me ingesting 33 or 40 mg. It seems clear that ingesting AlPhosphate is preferable, as it is less absorbed, but does that apply to injection?

This is all about PreNatal Tdap. Another question I have is: where can I see *current* Pertussis stats in my location? Would I just call my local HD?

minerva23 10-25-2013 01:08 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11522584

 

This article talks about macrophagic myofasciitis due to exposure to aluminum hydroxide-containing vaccines.

 

 

 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/janak/080723

 

This is from a Gardasil study but it highlights the difference between the alum group and the non-alum group.


dinahx 10-26-2013 07:11 PM

Well I am still really struggling with this: I have another 4 weeks to decide. On one hand, the dose in Adacel is 0.33mg, however I would have to eat 33 mg in one sitting to get that dose by ingestion (as only 1% is absorbed) & that would pretty much never ever happen. I wish I could find out whether the entire 0.33mg will be transferring promptly across the placenta?

kathymuggle 10-27-2013 07:47 AM

In case you have not seen it, for outbreaks by area:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6241md.pdf

 

Page ND 573.

 

Good luck with your decision.  


minerva23 10-27-2013 02:56 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21072353

http://www.jbums.com/english/abstract.asp?articleID=2648

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/

 

Here is some more to read. It is really awkward that the only mice experiments I found were conducted using aluminium chloride.

For aluminium phosphate and aluminium hydroxide I could only find studies for ingesting it. Not even the FDA has put a label on it:

'Aluminum hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide have not been formally assigned to a pregnancy category by the FDA. There are no controlled data in human pregnancy.'

 

http://www.drugs.com/pregnancy/acetaminophen-aluminum-hydroxide-aspirin-caffeine-magnesium-hydroxide.html

 

 

I hope you can find the info that you are looking for.


japonica 10-31-2013 07:03 PM

Following. Just wanted to say that I was looking into info on this earlier this year as well (when my kids were supposed to get their dT) and couldn't find anything comparing the pharmacological action of the two types, injected, and if they were metabolized differently, excretion differences etc. I haven't found what I was looking for to date.


katelove 10-31-2013 08:10 PM

When aluminium is given as part of an IV infusion up to 40% is retained in the body (the rest is secreted via the kidneys) of adults. Can be up to 75% in newborns. When given IM, the excretion rates are probably closer to the IV rates than the oral.

Aluminium does cross the placenta and accumulate in the foetus in animal models so it is reasonable to assume it does in humans as well. I haven't been able to find any data on the amounts one could expect - I imagine it doesn't exist. The study methods required more or less preclude ethical human trials.

minerva23 11-02-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by katelove View Post

When aluminium is given as part of an IV infusion up to 40% is retained in the body (the rest is secreted via the kidneys) of adults. Can be up to 75% in newborns. When given IM, the excretion rates are probably closer to the IV rates than the oral.

Aluminium does cross the placenta and accumulate in the foetus in animal models so it is reasonable to assume it does in humans as well. I haven't been able to find any data on the amounts one could expect - I imagine it doesn't exist. The study methods required more or less preclude ethical human trials.


do you have any links for the  'up to 40% is retained in the body' statement?


katelove 11-02-2013 07:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by katelove View Post

When aluminium is given as part of an IV infusion up to 40% is retained in the body (the rest is secreted via the kidneys) of adults. Can be up to 75% in newborns. When given IM, the excretion rates are probably closer to the IV rates than the oral.


Aluminium does cross the placenta and accumulate in the foetus in animal models so it is reasonable to assume it does in humans as well. I haven't been able to find any data on the amounts one could expect - I imagine it doesn't exist. The study methods required more or less preclude ethical human trials.


do you have any links for the  'up to 40% is retained in the body' statement?

Of course :-) http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con093936.pdf page 6

dinahx 11-02-2013 08:53 PM

Scary: that link makes it seem like, since average Aluminum intake is 3-5mg/day & being injected with 0.33mg is the equivalent to consuming 33mg in one day (as only 1% of injected dose is absorbed), that this would be 10x my average daily dose.

It also says that it *can* cross the placenta, especially in the 3rd trimester. . . . After it is absorbed by the mother . . .

I really am still into this as a prevention strategy, but the Auminum exposure pre vs. postnatally doesn't seem that ideal.

If the baby excretes what is passed through the placenta, seems like it would continually recirculated?

katelove 11-02-2013 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

If the baby excretes what is passed through the placenta, seems like it would continually recirculated?

There would be some degree of recirculation as whatever is excreted in the urine would go into the amniotic fluid and be swallowed. However, since most orally ingested aluminium is excreted in faeces then, I imagine, it would accumulate in the meconium. Thus, it would be taken out of circulation and stored, as it were, in the mec until after birth.

cwill 11-03-2013 08:38 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9302736/

This study compared the distribution and excretion of AP vs. AH over a month's time following a single injection in rabbits. More aluminum is absorbed when AP is used than AH.

I'm on my phone so this is the best I can do for now.

cwill 11-04-2013 08:21 AM

Here is the full text of that study.  https://www.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/research/publications/FL97A.doc

 

It's obviously a pretty limited study.  Unfortunately, the full text doesn't include figures so the raw data is not available and I haven't been able to find them.  But they did find that absorption via IV was much, much higher than via IM injection (600 ng/mL vs. 2 ng/mL).  So that addresses the IV vs. IM question. 

 

They also say

Quote:
 The normal plasma aluminium concentration in rabbits is 30 ng/ml (10).  The maximum increase in the plasma aluminium concentration from the 0.85 mg aluminium doses of either adjuvant was approximately 2 ng/ml.  This small increase would have been masked by the aluminium background if 26Al-labeled adjuvants were not used.  If the same dose of these adjuvants was administered intramuscularly to adult humans, an increase in the plasma aluminium concentration of about 0.04 ng/ml could be expected based on the larger blood volume of humans and assuming the same rate of dissolution in interstitial fluid."

 

But this is where my lack of knowledge about toxicology or pharmacokinetics comes in.  More AP is absorbed than AH, but more AP is excreted in the urine than AH.  So ... where is the AH if it's not in the plasma or tissue or urine? 


cwill 11-04-2013 09:30 AM

Thanks a lot dinahx, now I can't stop.  Here's another study comparing injections of AP and AH in monkeys: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X04006887

 

I can't get the full-text, sorry.

 

So it sounds like AP is absorbed and excreted more rapidly than AH and is less likely to cause local reactions - or at least the local reactions don't persist as long.  I'm not sure what effect a local reaction would have on your baby, which is ultimately what you're interested in, right? 

 

This review is also interesting and fairly easy to read: http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200476a.html

 

It talks about the clearance rate, but also talks about why local reactions occur and mentions studies that looked at the effects of vaccines with and without the aluminum adjuvant.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 7.14%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.