CACTUS GRANDIFLORUS
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry [H]
The Council voted that cactus grandiflorus should not be accepted for New and Nonofficial Remedies, and that a statement be prepared for The Journal giving the reasons for this action. Accordingly the following report has been adopted by the Council and its publication authorized.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary.
Cactus Grandiflorus
The therapeutic value of this plant has been variously estimated by different observers. Experimental evidence as to its action is scanty and no complete chemical examination has ever been made.
Reputable men have testified that some of the plants of the cactus family contain very active principles, but so far experiments seem to prove that cactus grandiflorus has neither the action of digitalis nor that of strychnin. The principal contributions, clinical and experimental, for and against the drug, are set out below.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
O. H. Myers[8] worked with a product which he calls cactina and which he regards as the active principle of the drug. (As no such substance as cactina is described in any materia medica, it is impossible to state what Myers really used.) He found that it had a strychnin-like action and raised the blood-pressure.
Hatcher comes to the conclusion: “Either Myers’ work was a pure fabrication or he was dealing not with cactin but with a substance similar to the pellotin of Heffter, the action of which resembles that of strychnin to a certain extent.”
E. Boinet and J. Boy-Teissier[9] experimented with an aqueous extract, an alcoholic extract, and with an alkaloid which they call “cactine.” They concluded from three sets of experiments on frogs that extract of cactus produces, in ten minutes, a temporary increase in the heart’s action which frequently repeated doses are required to maintain; and that large doses slow the heart and produce arrhythmia.
L. E. Sayre[10] experimented with a preparation of cactus, made from the stem of the plant, by injecting it into the dorsal lymph space of the frog. There was seemingly an increase in the amplitude of the heart’s action and an indication of a strengthened beat or increased force.
R. A. Hatcher[11] states that it is possible that cactus grandiflorus, under certain conditions, may contain a principle with a strychnin-like action. But Hatcher made ten experiments on frogs, four on cats, six on dogs, two on rabbits, and one on a guinea-pig, with Cactina pillets of the Sultan Drug Company and the Cactin of the Abbott Alkaloidal Company. From 1 to 15 pillets in frogs and up to 25 in dogs were used at each dose. In no single instance was there any evidence of a digitalis-like or strychnin-like action, or, in fact, of any decided action of any kind whatever.
Gordon Sharp[12] was unable to obtain either alkaloid or glucosid from the plant, but found a series of resins that caused contraction of the blood-vessels of a frog. This was not a digitalis-like contraction, but depended, he believed, on simple acidity. On the heart of the frog the resins have little or no effect, comparisons being made with digitalis in the same animals. There is no proof that cactus grandiflorus itself shortens diastole, or in fact, that it has any special action on the heart muscle at all. Sharp experimented on himself with large doses of an extract made with alcohol 1 to 5, but got no noticeable results. He thinks that the plant may have some slight diuretic action.
Sayre submitted the preparation which he used in his experiments for more careful testing to E. M. Houghton, who reported that it had practically no action on the heart.
In commenting on Houghton’s results, Reid Hunt said that they were confirmed by his own experiments. He did not deny, however, that the drug might have some therapeutic effect and that, in very large doses, it did affect the kidneys.
S. A. Matthews[13] found one preparation of cactus (cactin—Abbott) absolutely inert so far as any effect on the heart is concerned. He found that cactina (Sultan Drug Co.) in very large doses depressed both the circulation and respiration. In this regard it differs from strychnin, and it has no resemblance to the action of digitalis, strophanthus or any of the heart stimulants. A dose of from 10 to 12 pillets administered intravenously to a 10 to 12 kg. dog exerted little or no influence on the heart or circulation; the larger dose may cause a slight fall in blood-pressure. When 70 or more pillets were administered within two and a half hours the animal generally died.
The work of Boinet and Boy-Teissier also has been criticized by Hatcher on the ground that their most positive results were obtained with an alkaloid which no one at this day is able to prepare. The results quoted in this report, however, were obtained by the use of extracts of cactus so that it does not seem that they should be entirely rejected, whatever their value may be.
CLINICAL EVIDENCE
Clinical observations have been more abundant than exact, and a favorable action of the drug in some organic diseases of the heart has been reported; other observers would limit its use to functional arrhythmia, insisting that it is not a substitute for digitalis or aconite, but that it occupies a place distinct from either of those remedies.
P. W. Williams[14] recommends cactus for functional heart disease, but, as a rule, found it useless in organic disease. He thinks it one of a class of remedies which act on the accelerator nerves and sympathetic ganglia, shortening the diastole and stimulating the spinal vasomotor nerve centers. Williams apparently relied on Myers for his knowledge of the pharmacologic action, and his paper is a fair example of the clinical studies of cactus.
Ellingwood[15] claims that cactus is a cardiac tonic, acting on the accelerator nerves and heart ganglia, increasing muscular force and arterial tension. He recommends it in both organic and functional diseases.
Boinet and Boy-Teissier found that therapeutic doses of 40 drops of tincture of cactus were without effect on the normal heart. In patients with noisy asystole (asystolie bruyante) the same dose produced no appreciable effect. In the period of latent non-compensation of true cardiac patients, from 80 to 100 drops a day increased the force of the failing heart. In patients with secondary heart disease with arrhythmia of nervous origin, daily doses of 80, 100 and 120 drops of the tincture were well tolerated for weeks; they seemed to increase the fulness of the pulse and regulated its rhythm. In spite of such large doses, these observers never noticed any symptoms that could be attributed to a cumulative action. It must be remembered that the precise preparation of cactus which they used is not known.
Aulde[16] recommends it as a cardiac tonic free from cumulative effects.
Gordon Sharp says: “The therapeutics of the subject, I think, are clear enough. Cactus grandiflorus cannot be included in our list of cardiac drugs. It is not even a simple stomachic tonic and at most all one can say is that it has small diuretic action.”
Hatcher says: “Clinical testimony is so conflicting that between the extreme views of Gordon Sharp and those of Ellingwood there is room for an honest difference of opinion concerning cactus grandiflorus.”
Matthews himself took 100 granules of cactin (1⁄67 gr.—1 mg. each), 25 every four hours, without experiencing the least effect.
CONCLUSIONS
Reliable conclusions regarding the therapeutic use of cactus grandiflorus are rendered difficult on account of several factors.
1. It is uncertain what part of the plant contains the active principle if one exists; and its nature is unknown. The National Standard Dispensatory states that its “activity must be confined to the flower in some special stage of its development or to a certain part of it or to some parts gathered with it.” This uncertainty may explain the negative results obtained by some observers, but it makes the drug one that cannot be generally relied on and gives an excellent opportunity for the exploitation of proprietary preparations.
2. Some of the experimental work and much of the clinical evidence has been obtained and published under proprietary auspices. For this reason many of the therapeutic claims made for the drug must be viewed as merely the reflection of the exaggerated statements made by the advertisers of proprietary preparations.
3. The value of clinical evidence when unsupported by an animal experimentation is much diminished by the tendency of enthusiastic and untrained observers to attribute to the drug given the effect really due to general remedial measures, psychic suggestion and so forth. While it must be admitted that valuable remedies may exist whose therapeutic properties cannot be revealed by animal experimentation, yet in the absence of such experimental evidence conclusions should be drawn with extreme caution.
Bearing these conditions in mind, the following statements seem to be justified: (a) The botanical, chemical and pharmaceutical properties of cactus are not sufficiently determined to make any available preparation a reliable remedy. (b) There is some evidence that cactus may be capable of affecting the animal heart and nervous system, but its action is not that ordinarily attributed to it. It does not increase the force of the heart-beat. (c) While there is some clinical testimony as to its usefulness in functional diseases of the heart, the indications for its administration are at present too uncertain to afford a safe basis for recommending it.
4. While the drug may be deserving of further experimental and clinical investigation, this should be carried on in reliable pharmacologic laboratories and in clinics provided with facilities for exact observation.—(From The Journal A. M. A., March 12, 1910.)