Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
E-pub ahead of print

Was amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate adequately evaluated before authorisation in Europe?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder?

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  2. Assessing assumptions for statistical analyses in randomised clinical trials

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Updated 2018 NICE guideline on pharmacological treatments for people with ADHD: a critical look

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

The Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp aluminium adjuvant 'amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate' (AAHS), primarily used in the Gardasil vaccines against human papilloma virus, has been criticised for lack of evidence for its safety. Documentation from Danish authorities and answers from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) suggest that AAHS may not have been sufficiently evaluated. Documentation from the Danish Medicines Agency shows discrepancies in the trial documents of two prelicensure clinical trials with Gardasil in 2002 and 2003. For both trials, the Agency seems to have authorised potassium aluminium sulfate as the adjuvant and not AAHS. In addition, the participants in the trial launched in 2002 were informed that the comparator was saline, even though the comparator was AAHS in an expedient consisting of L-histidine, polysorbate-80, sodium borate and sodium chloride. According to the EMA, AAHS was first introduced in Europe in 2004 as the adjuvant in Procomvax, a vaccine against the hepatitis B virus and Haemophilus influenza type b. The EMA reports that AAHS was introduced without any prelicensure safety evaluation. The adjuvant is described by the company to be both physically and functionally distinct from all other previously used aluminium adjuvants. There is a need for rigorous evaluation of benefits and harms of the adjuvant AAHS.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
ISSN1356-5524
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 6 Aug 2020

Bibliographical note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

ID: 60792314