THE PHARMACOPEIA

The Ninth Decennial Revision

The ninth revision of the United States Pharmacopeia became official this week, Sept. 1, 1916. It is more fully reviewed elsewhere;[303] here we desire merely to call attention to two points; what the book is and what it is not. It is a book of standards for drugs; it is not a book of standard remedies. The Committee of Revision of the Pharmacopeia included physicians and pharmacists (retail, wholesale and manufacturing), but the pharmacists were in the majority and in control. The majority of the representatives of the medical profession on this committee would have preferred to see the bulk of the Pharmacopeia reduced and its value as a work of reference enhanced by the rejection of thera­peutically worthless drugs. The representatives of commercial interests, on the other hand, argued that it was necessary for the Pharmacopeia to provide standards for drugs in more or less general use, whether worthless or otherwise. The force of this argument is somewhat impaired by the fact that the National Formulary, which has also been made a book of legal standards, now includes individual drugs as well as combinations; the new edition of the Formulary, in fact, contains a large number of drugs which had been dropped from the U. S. Pharmacopeia VIII. The principle of making use the sole criterion for admission to the Pharmacopeia, however, on the whole carried the day. It has not been strictly observed; good results from the efforts of the medical contingent are to be observed here and there, as in the deletion of elixir of the phosphates of iron, quinin and strychnin and of emulsion of cod liver oil with hypo­phosphites. That these instances were not expressions of policy on the part of the Committee on Revision, but merely deviations from policy, may be seen by a glance at the contents of the new Pharmacopeia. These include substances which have been shown to be inert, like the hypo­phosphites (calcium, potassium and sodium hypo­phosphites), complex and obsolete mixtures, like the compound syrup of sarsaparilla, and drugs which have been tried and found wanting, like saw palmetto berries. Even substances seldom used by the medical profession, but chiefly or altogether by the public, like sassafras, hops and peppermint (the herb), are standardized and made official. It seems difficult to discover any principle by which the sphere of the Pharmacopeia may be definitely marked off from that of the National Formulary. There is one great advantage in specifying U. S. P. drugs and preparations: Physicians who do so invoke legal standards of purity and identity. The only way to be sure of obtaining substances of therapeutic efficiency, however, is to exercise discrimination. The Pharmacopeia is no guide. Being prepared mainly by pharmacists to meet the needs of pharmacists, the Pharmacopeia of course contains much matter of little interest to physicians and entirely foreign to scientific medicine.—(Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 2, 1916.)

Review of Ninth Revision

The ninth revision of the United States Pharmacopeia, which has been in the hands of the Committee of Revision for more than six years, has just appeared. As was to be expected, the desire of medical men on the Committee of Revision to have therapeutic value made a requirement for admission to the Pharmacopeia has not been fully realized; it remains a book of standards for thera­peutically good, bad and indifferent remedies. Among the drugs of little or no therapeutic importance or value are musk, arnica, eriodictyon, quassia, pumpkin seed, saw palmetto berries, sarsaparilla and couch grass. Many superfluous drugs and preparations are included. For instance, of the nine forms of quinin described (quinin alkaloid, bisulphate, dihydrochlorid, hydrobromid, hydrochlorid, salicylate, sulphate and tannate, and quinin and urea hydrochlorid), at least four might well have been eliminated. Two insoluble forms (the alkaloid and the tannate), two soluble forms (the hydrochlorid and quinin and urea hydrochlorid), and a moderately soluble form (the sulphate) are all that could reasonably be demanded by even the most extreme partisans of the doctrine of “pharmaceutic necessity.” Further, the use of quinin salicylate for its salicylic acid content and of quinin hydrobromid for its bromid content is unscientific. The inclusion of these salts in the Pharmacopeia is regrettable.

Those interested in the promotion of rational therapy will also regret the inclusion of a number of fluidextracts of violently toxic drugs, such as aconite and gelsemium (dose 1⁄2 minim each), belladonna root, digitalis, nux vomica and ipecac (dose 1 minim each), and lobelia (dose 21⁄2 minims). The more diluted forms, the tinctures, of these drugs are preferable. The inclusion of such fluidextracts in the Pharmacopeia is playing into the hands of certain pharmaceutical manufacturers, who recommend the tincture be prepared from fluidextracts—an unscientific procedure.

The efforts of the medical members of the committee, however, have not been entirely fruitless. Of the articles described in the U. S. Pharmacopeia VIII, 243 have been deleted; sixty-seven new articles have been added. The loss of 167 titles may be set down as a gain. Moreover, most of the new substances give promise of therapeutic usefulness. Thirty-six are taken over from New and Non­official Remedies; nineteen are substances which are in the edition of Useful Drugs now in the press. It cannot be said, however; that all of the additions have been judiciously selected. It is an infelicitous time to add calcium and sodium glycero­phosphate just when grave doubts of their therapeutic efficiency are being felt. The addition of the extracts of aconite, hydrastis and viburnum prunifolium is likewise unfortunate. All are superfluous preparations, the first because a drug so powerful that an average dose of the extract is only 10 mg. or 1⁄6 grain is better given in the form of tincture; the second because hydrastis is a drug of uncertain value, already represented by three preparations, and the third because viburnum prunifolium has been discarded and discredited by the best therapeutic authorities. It must be accounted clear gain, on the other hand, that the deletions include many inert, obsolete or superfluous substances like bismuth citrate, kaolin cataplasm, pipsissewa, coca leaves, ladyslipper, wahoo, cotton root bark, compound acetanilid powder and compound syrup of hypo­phosphites, not to mention nine salts of iron and thirty-eight fluidextracts of various drugs. Wines, unmedicated and medicated, whisky and brandy are also among the articles dropped.

A number of new features are introduced, such as microscopic standards for powdered drugs, standard abbreviations for titles, the use of the term “mil” instead of “cubic centimeter,” and a chapter each on sterilization, diagnostic reagents, biologic assays, electrolytic determination of metals and the determination of alcohol, the melting point, the boiling point and the congealing point.

The chemical nomenclature is substantially the same as that adopted in the previous revision; so is the nomenclature of drugs. The addition of official abbreviations for the Latin titles of drugs will doubtless be found a useful feature.

Less commendable is the change from the familiar “Cc.” to “mil.” The term “cubic centimeter” is so thoroughly established and so widely used, wherever the metric system is employed, that it cannot be expected that it will be universally displaced by the word “mil.” The latter is therefore only a superfluous synonym, and as such out of harmony with the simplicity of the metric system. Perhaps it may even be taken for the abbreviation of “millimeter,” “milligram” or other words derived from “mille,” which would be equally entitled to the same abbreviation.—(Book Review in The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 2, 1916.)