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.)