CHLORLYPTUS
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
The condensed report on Chlorlyptus which follows and also a complete detailed report was sent to the proprietor, Jan. 9, 1920. In reply he requested that publication be postponed pending the submission of further clinical evidence. As after nine months this evidence had not been received the Council has authorized publication of its report.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary.
Chlorlyptus is manufactured by Chas. A. Weeks, trading as the Weeks Chemical Company, Philadelphia. It is prepared by chlorinating eucalyptus oil until it has bound 30 per cent. of chlorin, the chlorin being in relatively stable combination. It is claimed that Chlorlyptus is a new “chlorinated antiseptic,” highly efficient as a wound antiseptic and at the same time nonirritant and nontoxic. Chlorlyptus is offered for use in the treatment of local infections of all types, as well as of burns, and also as an antiseptic in the alimentary and genito-urinary tracts.
The claims were based largely on reports of investigations made by Philip B. Hawk and his collaborators. These reports the referee of the committee in charge of Chlorlyptus considered incomplete and unconvincing. Being advised of this Mr. Weeks caused further investigations to be made. Some of the information was checked and extended by the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory and by the referee.
The laboratory side of the investigation may now be considered as complete. The results show that Chlorlyptus is a feeble antiseptic of the aromatic oil type, considerably weaker than eucalyptus oil, both as to therapeutic and toxic qualities. The chlorin contained in it is bound too firmly to have any action; in fact, the chlorination appears to have accomplished nothing more than a considerable destruction or weakening of the eucalyptus oil. As far as the referee can judge, this object could have been accomplished just as effectively by diluting ordinary eucalyptus oil with some indifferent solvent.
The manufacturer of Chlorlyptus contends that if the experimental findings are against his product, it should be judged by the clinical data. The clinical evidence, however, is not decisive. It shows that wounds healed and infections were prevented or successfully combated in cases in which Chlorlyptus was used in combination with good surgery, but it does not show how much of the result was due to the surgery and how much, if any, to the use of Chlorlyptus. Even if it were granted as probable that the Chlorlyptus contributed to the favorable outcome, it would still be a question whether it equals other established antiseptics, or whether it possesses any material advantages over diluted eucalyptus oil. Until these points are established the clinical reports cannot offset the unfavorable results of the laboratory investigation.