This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

FLOYD DE EDS, Ph.D.

Arch Intern Med. 1924;34(4):511-528.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

INTRODUCTION

Besides its common use as a urinary antiseptic, hexamethylenamin is alleged to be beneficial, when administered orally and intravenously, in various infectious diseases. Clinically,¹ it has been administered in this way in the treatment of typhoid (Ymaz; Loeper; Ymaz and Ayerza), pneumonia (Loeper; Clarke; Mikhailoff; Loeper and Grosdidier), nephritis (Loeper and Grosdidier; Loeper; de Matta), epidemic encephalitis (Thomas and Rendu), influenza (Loeper and Grosdidier; Michel), serofibrinous pleurisy (Loeper and Grosdidier; Michel), septicemia (Achard), typhus (Glutard), tuberculosis (Loeper and Wagner), prostatitis and epididymitis (Cooke), bronchitis (Mikhailoff; Never), and malaria (Plaschkes and Benkovic). A sound basis for the use of hexamethylenamin in various systemic infections appears to be lacking. However, it is conceivable that certain conditions might exist which would permit hexamethylenamin to exert an antiseptic action. These would be concerned with the liberation of formaldehyd in the blood and tissues.

Experimental evidence indicates that hexamethylenamin per se has no antiseptic . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
SAN FRANCISCO

From the Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Stanford University.

Footnotes
Thesis (Part II) submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?