“ARSENOVEN S. S.” AND “ARSENO-METH-HYD”
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
The Council authorizes publication of the following report. This report declares Arsenoven S. S. of the S. S. Products Company and Solution of Arsenic and Mercury (formerly called Arseno-Meth-Hyd) of the New York Intravenous Laboratory, inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies. The Council takes this opportunity to repeat its warning against the abuses—often dangerous—to which patients are frequently subjected when “intravenous therapy” is employed.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary.
Because of inquiries received, the Council took up the consideration of Arsenoven S. S. and Arseno-Meth-Hyd (now sold as Solution of Arsenic and Mercury). The preparations having been referred to a committee for consideration, this committee reported:
ARSENOVEN S. S.
“Arsenoven S. S.” is a preparation put out by the S. S. Products Company, Philadelphia. The claims are made that it is “a simplified office treatment for syphilis” and is “a combination of arsenic and mercury for office use, offering maximum efficiency, safety and convenience.” According to the company, “Arsenoven S. S.” contains Dimethylarsenin 15.4 grains, Mercury biniodid 1⁄10 grain, Sodium iodid 1⁄2 grain. With regard to the identity of “dimethylarsenin” the company claims: “This product is a compound of cacodylic acid similar to sodium cacodylate but with a more pronounced therapeutic action.” The committee recommends to the Council that “Arsenoven S. S.” be declared inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies because of unwarranted therapeutic claims.
ARSENO-METH-HYD
“Arseno-Meth-Hyd,” is sold by the New York Intravenous Laboratory, New York City, for the treatment of syphilis. It comes in three dosages, 2 gm., 1.5 gm., and 0.7 gm., respectively. The claim is made that “Arseno-Meth-Hyd 2 gm.” contains “2 gm. (31 grains) of Sodium Dimethylarsenate (Cacodylate), U. S. P.. and Mercury Iodid 5 mg. (1⁄12 grain)” in 5 c.c. of solution. Physicians are told:
“In primary and early secondary case administer Arseno-Meth-Hyd 2 gm. every sixth day and Mercury Oxycyanide .008 (1⁄8 grain) intravenously between each injection.”
“In Tertiary cases and those of long standing alternate with intravenous injection of Sodium Iodid 2 gm.”
The following claims are made for the alleged effectiveness and safety of the cacodylate:
“This methyl compound of arsenic has come into almost universal use for syphilis. On account of lack of toxicity an aggressive routine can be carried on. The simple technic and absence of reactions make it most desirable for the regular practitioner. This large dose gives more uniform results both as healing manifestations and negative Wassermann’s.”
“Much discussion has surrounded the use of Methyl Compounds of Arsenic and it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that Cacodylate of Soda proves an effective remedy for syphilis provided that it is properly administered.” [sic]
“The low toxicity of this Methyl compound of arsenic is remarkable. It is contraindicated only where a decided idiosyncrasy for even small doses of arsenic exists.”
These statements are essentially false and misleading. Cacodylate has not come into universal use in the treatment of syphilis, nor has its usefulness been “demonstrated beyond doubt.” On the contrary, H. N. Cole (The Journal, Dec. 30, 1916, p. 2012) has shown that doses so large as to produce renal injury were almost totally ineffective against syphilis. Obviously, “effective doses” if such exist, are not harmless. The dosage advised for Arseno-Meth-Hyd may not produce acute toxic symptoms; nevertheless smaller doses have produced nephritic phenomena. The “Arseno-Meth-Hyd” treatment includes the intravenous injection of about 1⁄4 grain of a mercury salt. Although this is less than the usual dose (about 1 grain per week), the mercury is probably more effective than the cacodylate.
The committee recommends to the Council that, because of the unwarranted therapeutic claims, “Arseno-Meth-Hyd” be held inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies.
The Council adopted both reports of the committee and declared “Arsenoven S. S.” and “Solution of Arsenic and Mercury” (“Arseno-Meth-Hyd”) inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies. The committee’s reports on these two products impel the Council again to call attention to the undesirable and dangerous abuses to which “Intravenous Therapy” lends itself. There is a distinct field for the intravenous administration of drugs in those cases in which immediate drug action is necessary, or when the medicament is likely to be changed if absorbed through the ordinary channels. Unless such indications exist, however, intravenous administration involves not only inconvenience and expense to the patient, but what is more important, unnecessary danger. The fact that indiscriminate intravenous administration is peculiarly profitable to certain manufacturing houses makes it all the more necessary for the medical profession to be on its guard in this matter.
In this connection it is well worth while to quote the closing paragraph from an editorial on “Intravenous Therapy” that appeared in The Journal, Nov. 11, 1916. It is as true today as when it appeared:
“Intravenous therapy will be most securely advanced if its employment is restricted to such well defined fields. [As those mentioned above.] These fields can be satisfactorily determined only by a scientific pharmacologic study of the action of these drugs when so administered in animals, as well as in man, under conditions in which the results are carefully controlled. The intravenous method is an impressive one, approaching in preparation almost to that which goes with a surgical operation. The patient is usually interested and impressed by this new, and, to him, mysterious method. There is a psychic element in his reaction to the injection which is not a factor in his reaction to the same drug when given by mouth. The intravenous injection of a complex mixture would appear to be particularly reprehensible. Little is known, as has been stated, of the results to be expected from intravenous therapy, even with simple substances. The use of complex mixtures will without doubt react against the proper use of the method.”
After the report on Arseno-Meth-Hyd had been presented to the Council, a letter was received from the New York Intravenous Laboratory announcing that the preparation “Arseno-Meth-Hyd” was now called “Solution of Arsenic and Mercury” and expressing a desire to have its products accepted for inclusion in New and Nonofficial Remedies. In view of this letter, the committee’s report on “Arseno-Meth-Hyd” and the Council’s protest against promiscuous intravenous therapy were sent the New York Intravenous Laboratory for consideration.
The reply of the New York Intravenous Laboratory contained nothing which permitted a revision of the preceding report. The change of the name of “Arseno-Meth-Hyd” to “Solution of Arsenic and Mercury” means little as the name still does not disclose the important fact that the arsenic is present as sodium cacodylate, nor does it tell the character of the mercury compound. The Council voted that “Solution of Arsenic and Mercury” and “Arsenoven S. S.” be declared inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies because the therapeutic claims advanced for them are unwarranted (Rule 6) and because the names of these pharmaceutical preparations are not descriptive of their composition (Rule 8).
In filing its reply with the Council, the New York Intravenous Laboratory announced that that document would be circulated to the medical profession. This is of course the firm’s privilege. The Council notes, however, with interest, that the reply is devoted almost entirely to points which were not raised by the Council and that it fails to discuss the objections which were actually made.
The reply constantly confuses the efficiency of cacodylate in anemia and in syphilis. The Council’s report on “Arseno-Meth-Hyd” does not discuss or even touch on the question of cacodylates in anemia. It is confined to a discussion of the disappointing results obtained with cacodylates as such (i. e., without mercury) in the treatment of syphilis. This attempt on the part of the New York Intravenous Laboratory to confuse the issue and to attribute to the Council an opinion that it has never stated or held is an inexcusable misrepresentation. The company in its reply said:
“We believe that you have previously stated that a solution cacodylate of soda possesses no more action than so much water. In other words, it was inert. Now you try to show that it produces renal injury.”
The Council has never declared that cacodylates are inert. In the report it is merely stated “that doses so large as to produce renal injury were almost totally ineffective against syphilis.” Neither has the Council stated that cacodylate is “peculiarly dangerous.” In fact the absolute toxicity of cacodylates is low but Cole’s results were quoted as a caution that “effective” doses are not harmless. A great portion of the remainder of the reply is devoted to disparaging arsphenamin—a product that is not involved in this action of the Council, and one about which the physician is amply informed.
Amongst other wholly extraneous matters, the firm’s “reply” tried to resurrect the pepsin pancreatin controversy. This also has nothing to do with the efficiency or harmlessness of sodium cacodylate. In order to dispose of the matter, however, it may be pointed out that the implications are entirely misleading. The work which is quoted against the Council was undertaken by the Council itself, to clarify obscurities in the older data. The outcome of these new investigations showed the essential correctness of the deductions from the older work, namely, that pancreatin is destroyed by pepsin-hydrochloric acid. Dr. Long’s work to which the firm’s reply evidently refers, showed that under favorable conditions, namely, when protected by an excess of protein, some trypsin may escape destruction in the stomach; but it fully confirmed the original conclusion that pepsin and pancreatin mixtures as ordinarily administered are practically worthless (J. H. Long, Jour. Amer. Pharmaco. Assoc., Sept. 19, 1917).
As regards the editorial on intravenous therapy, a concession may be made the New York Intravenous Laboratory: intravenous injections are no longer quite as “impressive” as in 1916, but that does not alter the fact that they should be used only when a distinct advantage is to be gained.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Aug. 2, 1919)