4.1 Article

Phosphate Binders Derived from Natural Ores Contain Many Kinds of Metallic Elements Besides Their Active Ingredient Metals

期刊

THERAPEUTIC APHERESIS AND DIALYSIS
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 630-634

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.12704

关键词

Calcium carbonate; Ferric citrate hydrate; Lanthanum carbonate; Natural ores; Sucroferric oxyhydroxide

资金

  1. Kidney Foundation, Japan [JKFB16-33]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most patients undergoing dialysis are required to take many phosphate binder pills to control hyperphosphatemia. Phosphate binders prescribed in Japan are classified into two types: metal-based binders (Ca carbonate, lanthanum carbonate, ferric citrate hydrate, and sucroferric oxyhydroxide) and chemically synthesized polymers (sevelamer hydrochloride and bixalomer). The raw materials of metal-based phosphate binders are natural ores; thus, such binders may contain several other metallic elements. We measured the elemental contents in six metal-based phosphate binders using an inductively coupled plasma mass - spectrometry (ICP-MS) method. As a result, despite being in small amounts, ore-derived phosphate binders contained various elements besides their active ingredient metals: Na, Mg, P, Mn, Fe, Sr, Y, Ba, La, Nd, and Pb in three Ca-based products; Mg, P, Se, Ce, and Gd in one La-based product; and Na, Mg, Al, P, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Ge, Ba, and La in two Fe-based products. These elements are considered to have originated from pharmaceutical bulk and from pharmaceutical additives. It is unlikely these elements are immediately harmful to patients. However, it should be emphasized that patients undergoing dialysis do not have a urinary excretion route and are administered many phosphate binder pills every day over a long period of time. In the future, pharmaceutical companies may have to disclose standard amounts and/or analytical values regarding the type and quantity of metallic elements in the final formulation or pharmaceutical bulk derived from natural ores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据