throbber
JPPT
`
`CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
`
`Aluminum in Pediatric Parenteral Nutrition Products:
`Measured Versus Labeled Content
`
`Robert L. Poole, PharmD,1 Kevin P. Pieroni, MD,2 Shabnam Gaskari, PharmD,1 Tessa K. Dixon, PharmD,1
`KT Park, MD,2 and John A. Kerner, Jr, MD2
`
`1Department of Pharmacy, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, and 2Department of Pediatrics, Division of
`Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
`
`OBJECTIVE Aluminum is a contaminant in all parenteral nutrition solutions. Manufacturers currently
`label these products with the maximum aluminum content at the time of expiry, but there are no published
`data to establish the actual measured concentration of aluminum in parenteral nutrition solution products
`prior to being compounded in the clinical setting. This investigation assessed quantitative aluminum
`content of products commonly used in the formulation of parenteral nutrition solutions. The objective of
`this study is to determine the best products to be used when compounding parenteral nutrition solutions
`(i.e., those with the least amount of aluminum contamination).
`
`METHODS All products available in the United States from all manufacturers used in the production of
`parenteral nutrition solutions were identified and collected. Three lots were collected for each identified
`product. Samples were quantitatively analyzed by Mayo Laboratories. These measured concentrations were
`then compared to the manufacturers’ labeled concentration.
`
`RESULTS Large lot-to-lot and manufacturer-to-manufacturer differences were noted for all products.
`Measured aluminum concentrations were less than manufacturer-labeled values for all products.
`
`CONCLUSIONS The actual aluminum concentrations of all the parenteral nutrition solutions were
`significantly less than the aluminum content based on manufacturers’ labels. These findings indicate that
`1) the manufacturers should label their products with actual aluminum content at the time of product
`release rather than at the time of expiry, 2) that there are manufacturers whose products provide
`significantly less aluminum contamination than others, and 3) pharmacists can select products with the
`lowest amounts of aluminum contamination and reduce the aluminum exposure in their patients.
`
`INDEX TERMS aluminum, parenteral nutrition, toxicity
`
`ABBREVIATIONS FDA, Food and Drug Administration; PN, parenteral nutrition
`
`J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011;16(2):92–97
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`aluminum exposure causes little harm as a result of
`pharmacokinetic properties characterized by a poor
`oral bioavailability. The gastrointestinal tract al-
`lows less than 1% of ingested aluminum into the
`bloodstream. Renal excretion removes 99% of the
`aluminum that enters the bloodstream.1 Despite
`these protective mechanisms, aluminum toxicity has
`been documented in the medical literature for over
`30 years.1–8 Recorded manifestations of aluminum
`toxicity include fracturing osteomalacia and re-
`duced bone mineralization, neurological dysfunc-
`tion and dialysis encephalopathy, microcytic
`hypochromic anemia, and cholestasis. Parenteral
`J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011 Vol. 16 No. 2  www.jppt.org
`
`Aluminum is the most abundant metallic ele-
`ment on earth and is naturally occurring in certain
`minerals, ores, oxides, and silicates. Humans are
`exposed to aluminum on a regular basis through
`drinking water, various foods, medications, dust,
`and deodorants. In an average, healthy individual,
`
`Address correspondence to: Robert L. Poole, PharmD,
`FPPAG, Department of Pharmacy, Lucile Packard Children’s
`Hospital at Stanford, 725 Welch Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304,
`email: rpoole@lpch.org
`Ó 2011 Pediatric Pharmacy Advocacy Group
`
`92
`
`Eton Ex. 1007
`1 of 6
`
`

`

`JPPT
`
`sium sulfate, sodium acetate, potassium chloride,
`sodium chloride, selenium, zinc chloride, zinc
`sulfate, pediatric multivitamins, and pediatric trace
`elements. The largest available product size was
`selected among products available in multiple sizes
`from the same manufacturer. Samples were pre-
`pared by drawing 2 mL of each solution into 3-mL
`Monoject syringes fitted with aluminum-free nee-
`dles. Samples were transferred into metal-free
`transport tubes, each assigned with a code identi-
`fiable by investigators. Quantitative aluminum
`analysis was performed by the Mayo Clinic
`Laboratories (Rochester, MN) using inductively
`coupled plasma mass spectrometry conducted on a
`Perkin-Elmer Elan 6100 DRC II inductively cou-
`pled plasma mass spectrometer (PerkinElmer Life
`and Analytical Sciences Inc, Waltham, MA).
`Aluminum concentrations were reported to the
`investigators in ‘‘mcg/L’’ units. The Student’s t-test
`was used to determine the statistical difference
`between the aluminum concentration on the man-
`ufacturer’s labels and the mean measured alumi-
`num concentration.
`
`RESULTS
`
`Aluminum in Pediatric Parenteral Nutrition Products
`
`nutrition (PN) has long been implicated as a major
`source of aluminum exposure as a result of
`contamination of the component ingredients. These
`component products are contaminated with alumi-
`num in raw materials as well as through byproducts
`from the manufacturing process, during which
`aluminum leaches from glass vials during autoclav-
`ing.9–11 Patients at greatest risk for aluminum
`toxicity from PN include those with underlying
`renal dysfunction and prolonged courses of paren-
`teral nutritional support. Premature infants are
`particularly at high risk of aluminum accumulation
`and toxicity as they often require days of PN
`support and have immature kidneys that are
`incapable of excreting aluminum efficiently. Calci-
`um gluconate and phosphate salts are known to be
`especially high in aluminum content and are often
`administered to premature infants in substantial
`amounts to promote bone mineralization.9,12
`In an attempt to limit the risk of aluminum
`toxicity, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
`(FDA) modified its ‘‘Regulations on Aluminum in
`Large and Small Volume Parenterals Used in Total
`Parental Nutrition’’ with the January 2000 Final
`Rule, enacted in July 2004.13,14 The Final Rule
`limits the aluminum concentration of large-volume
`parenteral products to 25 mcg/L. Small-volume
`parenteral products must state the maximum
`aluminum concentration at the time of product
`expiry on the product’s label, but no maximum
`aluminum concentration is otherwise specified.
`Manufacturers of all PN products must also include
`a package insert with a standardized warning
`describing the presence of aluminum in the product;
`the risk of using the products in infants and patients
`with impaired kidney function; and a recommended
`maximum daily aluminum dose of 4 to 5 mcg/kg/
`day to prevent accumulation and toxicity.
`The purpose of this study was to quantitatively
`determine the actual aluminum concentrations of
`all commercially available products used to prepare
`PN solutions from all available manufacturers and
`to determine the best (least contaminated with
`aluminum) products on the market.
`
`A total of 18 PN components consisting of 33
`products from 6 available manufacturers in the
`States were sampled. The measured and labeled
`aluminum contents of the 33 products, along with
`days from expiry and p-values, are listed in Tables 1
`through 3. Among all manufacturers, there was
`large lot-to-lot variability, but even more striking
`was the manufacturer-to-manufacturer difference
`between products.
`The measured aluminum concentrations were
`significantly lower ( p,0.05)
`than the labeled
`concentrations in all products except sodium
`chloride 2.5 mEq/L. All of the calcium gluconate
`and potassium phosphate products contained high
`amounts of aluminum in both the measured and
`labeled concentrations. Likewise, the labeled and
`measured concentrations of aluminum in the
`American Regent sodium phosphate product con-
`tained a high concentration of aluminum. Although
`these products contain the highest aluminum
`concentration, calcium gluconate, potassium phos-
`phate, and sodium phosphate contained 20% to
`The Stanford University Medical Center Insti-
`30%, 8% to 16%, and 13% to 16% of
`the
`tutional Review Board approved this study. PN
`aluminum, respectively, compared to the labeled
`products available in the United States from all
`concentrations. Sterile water, amino acids,
`fat
`manufacturers were identified and collected for
`emulsion, potassium chloride, sodium chloride,
`evaluation. Three separate lots from each manu-
`70% dextrose, sodium acetate, potassium acetate,
`facture of the following products were tested: sterile
`magnesium sulfate, trace elements, multivitamin,
`water for injection, dextrose 70%, amino acids, fat
`zinc chloride, zinc sulfate, and selenium all had low
`emulsion, calcium gluconate, sodium phosphate,
`aluminum concentrations.
`potassium phosphate, potassium acetate, magne-
`J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011 Vol. 16 No. 2  www.jppt.org
`
`METHODS
`
`93
`
`Eton Ex. 1007
`2 of 6
`
`

`

`JPPT
`
`RL Poole, et al
`
`Table 1. Aluminum Content of Various Products Used in Parenteral Nutrition Solutions
`
`Manufacturer (NDC)
`
`Sterile water
`
`American Regent
`(0517-3050-25)
`
`Days From
`Expiry (Range)
`
`1270 (1239-1299)
`
`Mean Aluminum
`Content (mcg/L)
`
`Labeled Measured (Range)
`25
`
`,5 (,5)
`
`p-Value
`
`,0.0001
`
`American Pharmaceutical
`Partners (63323-185-50)
`
`511 (356-666)
`
`Hospira (0409-7990-09)
`
`584 (507-635)
`
`B. Braun (0264-7850-00)
`
`786 (702-844)
`
`Baxter (0338-0013-08)
`
`241 (215-270)
`
`Dextrose 70%
`
`Hospira (0409-7120-07)
`
`642 (625-661)
`
`B. Braun (0264-1290-50)
`
`239 (50-427)
`
`B. Braun (0264-9341-55)
`
`579 (539-599)
`
`Amino acids,
`TrophAmine 10%
`
`25
`
`25
`25
`
`25
`
`25
`25
`25
`
`5 (,5)
`
`,0.0001
`
`6.6 (,5-10)
`
`0.0004
`
`,5 (,5)
`
`,5 (,5)
`
`14 (11-16)
`
`20 (19-21)
`
`,0.0001
`
`,0.0001
`
`0.02
`
`0.001
`
`7 (,5-11)
`
`0.0008
`
`Fat emulsion,
`intralipid 20%
`
`Fresenius Kabi
`(0338-0519-03)
`
`Calcium gluconate,
`100 mg/mL
`
`American Pharmaceutical
`Partners (63323-311-61)
`
`377 (209-507)
`
`25
`
`11 (,5-17)
`
`0.05
`
`583 (570-599)
`
`9400
`
`2812 (1969-3495)
`
`0.004
`
`American Regent
`(0517-3900-25)
`
`416 (415-417)
`
`12,500
`
`2487 (1928-2887)
`
`0.0008
`
`Magnesium
`sulfate 50%
`
`American Pharmaceutical
`Partners (63323-064-20)
`
`234 (81-386)
`
`300
`
`109 (99-199)
`
`0.03
`
`Hospira
`(00409-2168-03)
`
`American Regent
`(0517-2650-25)
`
`360 (296-417)
`
`280
`
`122 (103-134)
`
`0.004
`
`552 (537-580)
`
`12,500
`
`165 (113-201)
`
`,0.0001
`
`NDC, National Drug Code
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`reduction in the Bayley Mental Development Index
`score would be 1 point per day of PN. A follow-up
`There have been numerous reports1–8 of alumi-
`study of these former infants looked at their bone
`num toxicity resulting from the contamination of
`mineralization 15 years later.6 Dual-energy radio-
`PN solutions over the past 3 decades. A key study
`graph absorptiometry showed that the now-adoles-
`by Bishop et al.5 that contributed to the FDA’s
`cent patients who had received the aluminum-
`decision to have PN solutions labeled with their
`depleted PN solutions during prematurity had a
`aluminum content compared neurological develop-
`higher bone mineral content and bone area than did
`ment in premature infants who received a standard
`those who received the standard PN solution. These
`PN formula or an aluminum-depleted formula for a
`findings indicate that
`total aluminum exposure
`period of 5 to 16 days. The median aluminum
`from prolonged PN is a contributing factor in
`content in the standard PN, 45 mcg/kg/day, was
`adverse neurologic and bone development among
`compared with that of an aluminum-depleted PN
`premature infants.
`solution with an aluminum content of 4 to 5 mcg/
`Since the FDA modified its regulations in 2000,
`several studies15,16 have demonstrated that manu-
`kg/day. The authors estimated that for infants
`facturers are not able to meet
`these stricter
`receiving the standard PN solution, the expected
`J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011 Vol. 16 No. 2  www.jppt.org
`
`94
`
`Eton Ex. 1007
`3 of 6
`
`

`

`Aluminum in Pediatric Parenteral Nutrition Products
`
`JPPT
`
`Table 2. Aluminum Content of Potassium and Sodium Products Used in Parenteral Nutrition Solutions
`
`Product
`(Concentration)
`
`Potassium phosphate
`(3 mmol/mL)
`
`Potassium acetate
`(2 mEq/mL)
`
`Manufacturer (NDC)
`
`Days from
`Expiry (Range)
`
`Mean Aluminum
`Content (mcg/L)
`
`Labeled Measured (Range)
`
`p-Value
`
`Hospira (0409-4201-01)
`
`435 (387-482)
`
`51,000
`
`4040 (3647-4434)
`
`0.005
`
`American Regent
`(0517-2350-25)
`
`290 (203-327)
`
`62,500
`
`9972 (6512-16,818)
`
`0.004
`
`Hospira (0409-3294-06)
`
`350 (296-417)
`
`200
`
`22 (11-42)
`
`0.003
`
`American Regent
`(00517-2400-25)
`
`495 (368-610)
`
`25,000
`
`744 (521-1120)
`
`,0.0001
`
`Potassium chloride
`(2 mEq/mL)
`
`American Pharmaceutical
`Partners (63323-967-30)
`
`282 (276-387)
`
`100
`
`6.5 (,5-8)
`
`0.01
`
`Sodium phosphate
`(3 mmol/mL)
`
`Hospira (00409-1513-02)
`
`116 (31-174)
`
`Hospira (0409-7391-72)
`
`479 (360-568)
`
`100
`
`180
`
`5.3 (,5-6)
`
`,0.0001
`
`29 (17-38)
`
`0.001
`
`American Regent
`(00517-3450-25)
`
`378 (296-451)
`
`25,000
`
`3242 (3177-3281)
`
`,0.0001
`
`400 (276-478)
`
`360
`
`73 (54-85)
`
`0.0001
`
`Sodium acetate
`(2 mEq/mL)
`
`Hospira (00409-1513-02)
`
`American Regent
`(0517-2500-25)
`
`NDC, National Drug Code
`
`525 (396-610)
`
`25,000
`
`103 (74-138)
`
`,0.0001
`
`Table 3. Aluminum Content in Multivitamins and Trace Elements
`
`Manufacturer (NDC)
`
`Days From
`Expiry (Range)
`
`Mean Aluminum
`Content (mcg/L)
`
`Labeled Measured (Range)
`
`p-Value
`
`Hospira (0409-4090-01)
`
`411 (386-451)
`
`150
`
`11 (5-18)
`
`0.0007
`
`Zinc chloride
`(1 mg/mL)
`
`Zinc sulfate
`(1 mg/mL)
`
`American Regent
`(0517-6110-25)
`
`Selenium
`(40 mcg/mL)
`
`American Regent
`(0517-6510-25)
`
`604 (568-635)
`
`2500
`
`249 (54-359)
`
`0.002
`
`481 (386-549)
`
`2500
`
`285 (106-599)
`
`0.005
`
`Pediatric trace
`elements
`
`American Regent Multitrace-4
`(0517-9310-25)
`
`518 (518)
`
`2500
`
`101 (101)*
`
`NS
`
`American Regent Pediatric
`Trace Elements (0517-9203-25)
`
`442 (386-518)
`
`5000
`
`574 (316-739)
`
`0.0009
`
`Pediatric
`multivitamin
`
`Baxter (54643-5647-0)
`
`261 (239-306)
`
`Hospira (61703-421-53)
`
`99 (56-123)
`
`30
`
`42
`
`28 (26-29)
`
`18 (14-25)
`
`0.1
`
`0.02
`
`NDC, National Drug Code; NS, not specified.
`* Only 1 lot was sampled for this product.
`
`J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011 Vol. 16 No. 2  www.jppt.org
`
`95
`
`Eton Ex. 1007
`4 of 6
`
`

`

`JPPT
`
`RL Poole, et al
`
`recently demonstrated that aluminum contamina-
`tion can occur throughout
`the formulation of
`aluminum-containing infusions, but that 56% of
`the aluminum content came from the commercial
`products prior to any manipulation in the hospital
`setting.20 These studies again illustrate the need for
`changes in the manufacturing process for PN
`solution components. Manufacturers must find
`ways to more precisely label the aluminum content
`of PN products since the current
`labeling of
`concentrations that will not be exceeded at the
`product’s expiry does not allow health professionals
`to properly assess the aluminum exposure in their
`patients. A more precise method may require
`manufacturers to label
`their products with the
`actual aluminum content at the time of product
`release rather than at the time of expiry.
`Health professionals and manufacturers need to
`develop better methods for decreasing the risk of
`aluminum toxicity and eliminating potentially long-
`term adverse effects, especially to infants who
`receive PN.21,22 Additional studies are needed to
`determine whether the FDA’s recommendation of
`less than 5 mcg/kg/day is attainable when the least-
`contaminated products are used to make PN
`solutions. Data from this article need to be applied
`to actual PN patient orders to make this determi-
`nation.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`regulations. This is particularly true in premature
`infants because of their higher calcium and phos-
`phate requirements compared to adults. A 2006
`study by Poole et al.15 calculated the expected daily
`aluminum exposure from pediatric PN solutions
`based on the manufacturer-stated aluminum con-
`centration. Even when selecting products allegedly
`containing the lowest aluminum concentration,
`expected average aluminum exposure in infants
`was 59.9 mcg/kg/day, exceeding the FDA recom-
`mended limit by a 12-fold measure. The FDA’s
`recommended limit of 5 mcg/kg/day was only
`feasible in patients weighing over 50 kg. In a 2010
`follow-up study by Poole et al.,16 the measured
`aluminum content of compounded PN solutions
`was found to be significantly less than the
`calculated content from the manufacturer’s label.
`Despite this, aluminum assays of compounded
`neonatal PN solutions still exceeded the FDA limit
`of 5 mcg/kg/day by 3 to 5 times. As part of this
`study, 16 standard PN solution components were
`measured to determine each of the components’
`aluminum concentrations. The study reported that
`there were significant differences in the measured
`aluminum concentrations compared to the manu-
`facturers’ labeled concentrations. Our study vali-
`dates these earlier findings that there is significantly
`less aluminum in PN solution components.
`A study by Mouser et al.17 found that 81% of
`aluminum contamination in neonatal PN was
`attributed to calcium gluconate. It is widely known
`that solutions such as calcium gluconate, sodium
`phosphate, and sodium acetate form complex ions
`with aluminum in the glass containers during the
`manufacturing process.10,11 The findings in this
`study support previous reports that calcium and
`phosphate solutions contain high concentrations of
`aluminum compared to other solutions. Since
`calcium is the major contributor to aluminum
`contamination, methods of producing calcium
`gluconate in nonglass containers or the develop-
`ment of methods to combine calcium gluconate
`with calcium chloride or calcium acetate in the
`compounding process would likely decrease the
`level of aluminum contamination.18,19 Our study
`was not powered or designed to serially monitor the
`aluminum concentration as the product remained in
`glass containers and neared its expiration date. This
`may be worth investigating in future studies to see if
`there is a significant change in aluminum concen-
`tration over the shelf life of the product.
`The manufacturer-to-manufacturer variation in
`ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported, in
`aluminum content of the PN solutions, as found in
`part, by the Carl and Patricia Dierkes Endowment for
`this study, indicates that the different processing
`Nutrition and Home Care and an Innovations in Patient
`methods of these solutions during manufacturing
`Care Grant from the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
`can considerably alter the degree of aluminum
`at Stanford. Poster presentation at the North American
`contamination of PN solutions. De Oliveira et al.
`Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and
`J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011 Vol. 16 No. 2  www.jppt.org
`
`The actual aluminum concentrations of all of the
`PN solutions were significantly less than the
`aluminum contents based on the manufacturers’
`labels. These findings indicate that if manufacturers
`measure the actual aluminum content at the time of
`product release, this method may improve accuracy
`in labeling compared to an estimation at the time of
`expiry. These findings also show that there are
`manufacturers whose products result in less alumi-
`num contamination than those of others. By
`identifying the least-contaminated products, phar-
`macists are able to choose products for their
`patients with the least amount of aluminum
`contamination and are thus able to reduce alumi-
`num exposure and the potential for aluminum
`toxicity.
`
`DISCLOSURE The authors have declared no potential
`conflicts or financial interest in any product or service
`mentioned in the manuscript.
`
`96
`
`Eton Ex. 1007
`5 of 6
`
`

`

`Aluminum in Pediatric Parenteral Nutrition Products
`
`Nutrition Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana,
`October 21, 2010. Oral presentation at the American
`College of Nutrition Annual Meeting in New York, New
`York on October 9, 2010. Oral presentation at the
`American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
`Annual Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
`on January 30, 2011.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1. Arnold CJ, Miller GG, Zello GA. Parenteral
`nutrition–associated cholestasis in neonates: the
`role of aluminum. Nutr Rev. 2003;61(9):306-
`310.
`2. Committee on Nutrition. Aluminum toxicity in
`infants and children. Pediatrics. 1986;78(6):
`1150-1154.
`3. Committee on Nutrition. Aluminum toxicity in
`infants and children. Pediatrics. 1996;97(3):413-
`416.
`4. Larchet M, Chaumont P, Galliot M, et al.
`Aluminium loading in children receiving long-
`term parenteral nutrition. Clin Nutr. 1990;9(2):
`79-83.
`5. Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A.
`Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants
`receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. N Engl
`J Med. 1997;336(22):1557.
`6. Fewtrell MS, Bishop NJ, Edmonds CJ, et al.
`Aluminum exposure from parenteral nutrition
`in preterm infants: bone health at 15-year
`follow-up. Pediatrics. 2009;124(5):1372-1379.
`7. Gilbert-Barness E, Barness LA, Wolff J, Har-
`ding C. Aluminum toxicity. Arch Pediatr
`Adolesc Med. 1998;152(5):511-512.
`8. Klein GL, Leichtner AM, Heyman MB. Alu-
`minum in large and small volume parenterals
`used in total parenteral nutrition: response to
`the Food and Drug Administration notice of
`proposed rule by the North American Society
`for Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. J
`Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1998;27(4):457-460.
`9. Bohrer D, do Nascimento P, Binotto R, et al.
`Contribution of the raw material to the alumi-
`num contamination in parenterals. J Parenter
`Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(6):382-388.
`10. Bohrer DN. Influence of the glass packing on
`the contamination of pharmaceutical products
`by aluminium. Part II: amino acids for paren-
`teral nutrition. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2001;
`15(2–3):103-108.
`
`JPPT
`
`11. Bohrer DN. Influence of the glass packing on
`the contamination of pharmaceutical products
`by aluminium. Part III: interaction container-
`chemicals during the heating for sterilisation. J
`Trace Elem Med Biol. 2003;17(2):107-115.
`12. Smith BS, Kothari H, Hayes BD, et al. Effect of
`additive selection on calculated aluminum
`content of parenteral nutrient solutions. Am J
`Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64(7):730-739.
`13. Food and Drug Administration. Aluminum in
`large and small volume parenterals used in total
`parenteral nutrition. Fed Reg. 2000;65:4103-
`4111.
`14. Food and Drug Administration. Aluminum in
`large and small volume parenterals used in total
`parenteral nutrition; amendment; delay of
`effective date. Fed Reg. 2002;67:70691-70692.
`15. Poole RL, Hintz SR, Mackenzie NI, Kerner JA.
`Aluminum exposure from pediatric parenteral
`nutrition: meeting the new FDA regulation. J
`Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2008;32(3):242-246.
`16. Poole RL, Schiff L, Hintz SR, et al. Aluminum
`content of parenteral nutrition in neonates:
`measured versus calculated levels. J Pediatr
`Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;50(2):208-211.
`17. Mouser JF, Wu AH, Herson VC. Aluminum
`contamination of neonatal parenteral nutrient
`solutions and additives. Am J Health Syst
`Pharm. 1998;55(10):1071-1072.
`18. Frey OR, Maier L. Polyethylene vials of
`calcium gluconate reduce aluminum contami-
`nation of TPN. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34(6):
`811.
`19. Charney PJ. The American Society for Paren-
`teral and Enteral Nutrition Aluminum Task
`Force. A.S.P.E.N. Statement on aluminum in
`parenteral nutrition solutions. Nutr Clin Pract.
`2004;19(4):416-417.
`20. de Oliveira SR, Bohrer D, Garcia SC, et al.
`Aluminum content in intravenous solutions for
`administration to neonates. J Parenter Enteral
`Nutr. 2010;34(3):322-328.
`21. Advenier E, Landry C, Colomb V, et al.
`Aluminum contamination of parenteral nutri-
`tion and aluminum loading in children on long-
`term parenteral nutrition. J Pediatr Gastro-
`enterol Nutr. 2003;36(4):448.
`22. Klein GL. Nutritional aspects of aluminium
`toxicity. Nutr Res Rev. 1990;3(1):117-141.
`
`J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2011 Vol. 16 No. 2  www.jppt.org
`
`97
`
`
`
`View publication statsView publication stats
`
`Eton Ex. 1007
`6 of 6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket