Case 6. “Some apparent benefit.”
Case 7. “She is practically free from pain, and the muscle and joint stiffness is now slight.”
These inconclusive opinions certainly do not agree with the favorable impression which other portions of the manufacturer’s literature create. If the factor of natural recovery in the conditions represented by these seven cases is given due weight, little, if anything, is left to the credit of “oxyl-iodide.” Such clinical evidence as is supplied by the manufacturer indicates that the therapeutic efficiency of “oxyl-iodide” is doubtful, and not an improvement over either cinchophen or iodid.
IODISM
Iodism cannot be avoided by the use of “oxyl-iodide,” for the manufacturer’s literature states that “the dosage of ‘oxyl-iodide’ may be pushed to iodism as manifested by skin symptoms.... To avoid iodism there should be an occasional interruption of treatment.” “Oxyl-iodide,” therefore, has no advantage over ordinary sodium iodid to avoid iodism. Usually, the conditions which require cinchophen do not require the simultaneous administration of iodids, and vice versa. If administration of iodid and cinchophen together should be indicated or desirable, these can be given separately with the added advantage that the iodid can be easily reduced or withdrawn in case iodism supervenes, and the cinchophen could be continued if necessary. Since conditions do not arise frequently enough to warrant the use of iodid and cinchophen together, the existence of such a product as “oxyl-iodide” is unwarranted.
Finally, the manufacturer himself recognizes that phenylcinchoninic acid (cinchophen) can take the place of “oxyl-iodide.” Under “dosage,” the circular states: “A few patients may be idiosyncratic to the iodides and find they cannot take ‘oxyl-iodide.’ For the latter chloroxyl, the hydrochloride of phenylcinchoninic acid, is recommended.” The action of the hydrochlorid of phenylcinchoninic acid does not differ, of course, from that of cinchophen. The difficulties of assigning a clear-cut, definite, therapeutic rôle to “oxyl-iodide” in order to justify its existence, alongside well-known and tried remedies are self-evident.
CONCLUSION
“Oxyl-iodide” is pharmacologically and therapeutically an illogical, irrational and unjustified substitute for cinchophen and iodids. The conditions which require the administration of cinchophen do not as a rule require the administration of iodid and vice versa. If it is desirable to secure the effects of iodid and cinchophen together, these can be more conveniently and advantageously administered as separate agents, permitting in that way a better control of their actions. This cannot be accomplished with “oxyl-iodide,” in which the proportion of iodid and cinchophen are fixed. Symptoms of iodism cannot be avoided by the administration of “oxyl-iodide.” The objective evidences for its actions and uses are totally lacking; and the clinical opinions concerning its therapeutic benefits in different disease conditions are inconclusive and hedging, and, if anything, contradictory to the favorable impressions which the language of the advertising matter is likely to create.—(From The Journal A. M. A., July 2, 1921.)