URISEPTIN

W. A. Puckner and W. S. Hilpert

“Uriseptin,” manufactured by the Gardner-Barada Chemical Co. of Chicago and claimed to be a “urinary antiseptic, uric acid solvent and diuretic,” was examined in the laboratory of the American Medical Association to determine to what extent the claims made for it are justified.

The preparation as purchased in the open market bears a label which presents the claims of the manufacturers, emphasized by the chemical analysis duly signed by an analyst and attested by a notary. Accompanying is a reproduction of part of the label.

Reduced photographic reproduction of part of the Uriseptin label.

Before the examination had extended very far it was found that discrepancies existed between facts and claims, and by the time the analysis was complete Uriseptin was found to be in the same class as many other proprietary remedies that have been discussed in these columns.

Our examination shows that the most misleading statement is that concerning the “lithium-formaldehyd” compound the presence of which is claimed, more or less directly, by both the manufacturers and the analyst employed by the manufacturers. Although the chemical properties of lithium and formaldehyd indicate in themselves that the existence of such a compound would be most improbable, yet considerable time was spent in searching the chemical literature for such a compound. Thorough search, however, demonstrated that no such compound, nor any that even approximated it, has been described.

The question then arose as to the form in which the lithium and the formaldehyd are present. The statements regarding its properties as a urinary antiseptic and the fact that the preparation is said to liberate formaldehyd slowly in the bladder point strongly to the presence of hexa­methylen­amin.

Tests[102] were applied to demonstrate whether the formaldehyd was present as a lithium compound, and if not, whether it existed in the form of hexa­methylen­amin. By these the presence of hexa­methylen­amin was proved and the absence of formaldehyd in other combinations demonstrated. This fact alone shows that the preparation is deliberately marketed under a false claim, and it shows further that the analysis on the label is worthless. The quantitative method of analysis demonstrated the presence of 5.51 gm. hexa­methylen­amin per 100 c.c. (25.15 grains per fluidounce).

Besides the hexa­methylen­amin, Uriseptin contains lithium and a benzoate. Concerning the latter nothing is said in the analysis, whose worthlessness is again demonstrated. By quantitative methods Uriseptin was found to contain lithium and a benzoate in such proportions as would indicate that the lithium and the benzoate radicle exist as lithium benzoate. This fact is further indicated by the claims made for the preparation regarding its properties as a uric acid solvent, for which purpose lithium benzoate is often used. Again, the demonstration that the formaldehyd present is in combination as hexa­methylen­amin precluded any possible chemical combination between lithium and formaldehyd and adds another strong point in support of the conclusion that the lithium and benzoic acid are in combination as lithium benzoate.

CONCLUSION

By chemical analysis the active ingredients of Uriseptin are shown to be hexa­methylen­amin, approximately 5.5 gm. per 100 c.c. (about 25 gr. to each fluidounce), and lithium benzoate, approximately 0.70 gm. per 100 c.c. (about 11 grains to each fluidounce), neither of which compounds is mentioned in the advertising matter on the label or in the so-called “analysis” on the label. The statements concerning the composition of Uriseptin are false and appear to be a deliberate attempt to mislead physicians.

Comment.—Investigation of the various “patent” and so-called “ethical proprietaries” advertised to the public and to the medical profession shows that those that have any value as therapeutic agents depend for that value on some well known drug or drugs. Hence, while many proprietaries have some virtue, the ingredients which are of any value are so concealed by the coined and “near-scientific” names applied to them that these drugs are usually unrecognizable. The many and various acetanilid mixtures furnish examples of this class of proprietaries. And now we find another example in that much advertised nostrum, Uriseptin.

According to our chemists, the chief ingredients of Uriseptin are hexa­methylen­amin and lithium benzoate. Hexamethylenamin is a valuable so-called urinary antiseptic—​probably one of the best we have. It is a pity that more physicians do not know the value of this drug in and of itself; it is a common ingredient of many proprietaries, and yet too seldom prescribed under its true name. There is no reason for its being given in the form of a nostrum; it requires no skill in compounding, for it is best given in its powdered form, either in capsules or otherwise. So that, like acetanilid, the old argument of the nostrum men that the preparation needs skill in compounding will not hold. If a physician wants to prescribe hexa­methylen­amin let him prescribe it in its simplest and best form, and thus know exactly what he is giving.

Lithium benzoate also has its rightful place in the materia medica, but not hidden in a proprietary mixture to be prescribed unknowingly. It is hard to conceive of any one thing that operates more disastrously against scientific therapeutics than the vicious practice of marketing under proprietary names standard and valuable drugs, with their identity purposely concealed. Yet how frequently it is done. Well-known drugs of unquestioned worth are combined with those that are little known and of doubtful value, or more likely absolutely worthless, the mixture is put on the market under a high-sounding name and it is exploited through physicians as a panacea for all kinds of diseases.

In this, as in so many other instances, an “analysis” made to order is given to lend an air of apparent respectability and scientific standing to the preparation or to its exploiters, with the object, of course, of misleading physicians into thinking they are reading unbiased testimony. In addition, the “literature” accompanying the preparation is usually a jargon of pseudo-scientific verbiage put in to serve the same purpose as the analysis—​that of catching the careless physician.

This state of affairs will continue just so long as the medical profession will tolerate it—​and no longer. So long as members of our profession will prescribe proprietaries on the statements of their owners—​as to both their composition and their therapeutic value—​just so long will pseudo-chemical and pseudo­pharma­ceut­ical companies fatten at the expense of the medical profession and to the detriment of the public health.​—(From The Journal A. M. A., Aug. 29, 1908.)