Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 28 (2), 89-101

Thiomersal in Vaccines: Balancing the Risk of Adverse Effects With the Risk of Vaccine-Preventable Disease

Affiliations
Review

Thiomersal in Vaccines: Balancing the Risk of Adverse Effects With the Risk of Vaccine-Preventable Disease

Mark Bigham et al. Drug Saf.

Abstract

A number of affluent countries are moving to eliminate thiomersal (thimerosal), an ethylmercury preservative, from vaccines as a precautionary measure because of concerns about the potential adverse effects of mercury in infants. The WHO advocates continued use of thiomersal-containing vaccines in developing countries because of their effectiveness, safety, low cost, wide availability and logistical suitability in this setting. The guidelines for long-term mercury exposure should not be used for evaluating risk from intermittent single day exposures, such as immunisation using thiomersal-containing vaccines. Similar or higher mercury exposures likely occur from breast feeding and the health benefit of eliminating thiomersal from a vaccine, if any, is likely to be very small. On the other hand, the benefits accrued from the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines are considerably greater but vary substantially between affluent and developing regions of the world. Because of the contribution to overall mercury exposure from breast milk and diet in later life, the removal of thiomersal from vaccines would produce no more than a 50% reduction of mercury exposure in infancy and <1% reduction over a lifetime. Different public policy decisions are appropriate in different settings to achieve the lowest net risk, viewed from the perspectives of the individual vaccinee or on a population basis. In developing regions of the world, at least over the next decade, far more benefit will accrue from protecting children against widely prevalent vaccine-preventable diseases by focusing efforts aimed at improving infant immunisation uptake by using current, inexpensive, domestically-manufactured, thiomersal-containing vaccines, than by investing in thiomersal-free alternatives.

Similar articles

  • Thiomersal in Vaccines: Is Removal Warranted?
    CJ Clements et al. Drug Saf 24 (8), 567-74. PMID 11480489. - Review
    The mercury-based vaccine preservative thiomersal has come under scrutiny in recent months because of its presence in certain vaccines that provide the foundation of chil …
  • The Evidence for the Safety of Thiomersal in Newborn and Infant Vaccines
    CJ Clements. Vaccine 22 (15-16), 1854-61. PMID 15121295. - Review
    While a number of studies remain to be completed, evidence is mounting that there is no demonstrable risk for infants immunized with vaccines containing thiomersal. Epide …
  • When Science Is Not Enough - A Risk/Benefit Profile of Thiomersal-Containing Vaccines
    CJ Clements et al. Expert Opin Drug Saf 5 (1), 17-29. PMID 16370953. - Review
    Without a preservative, such as thiomersal (known as thimerosal in the US), multi-dose liquid presentations of vaccine are vulnerable to bacteriological contamination tha …
  • [Mercury in Vaccines]
    L Hessel. Bull Acad Natl Med 187 (8), 1501-10. PMID 15146581. - Review
    Thiomersal, also called thimerosal, is an ethyl mercury derivative used as a preservative to prevent bacterial contamination of multidose vaccine vials after they have be …
  • Thiomersal as a Vaccine Preservative
    Wkly Epidemiol Rec 75 (2), 12-6. PMID 10697462.
    Thiomersal poses a theoretical low risk of neurodevelopmental toxicity in infants. The known risk of morbidity and mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases and of cont …
See all similar articles

Cited by 14 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999 Jul 9;48(26):563-5 - PubMed
    1. Science. 1973 Jul 20;181(4096):230-41 - PubMed
    1. Can Commun Dis Rep. 1999 May 15;25(10):89-93; discussion 93-4 - PubMed
    1. Pediatrics. 2002 Nov;110(5):873-8 - PubMed
    1. Neurotoxicology. 1996 Spring;17(1):9-14 - PubMed
Feedback