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

M. F. LAUTMAN, M.D.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1926;13(2):234-236.

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

The manufacturers of sulpharsphenamin claim that it was placed on the market for use in patients who had veins so small as to preclude the use of the more effective arsenicals, arsphenamin and neo-arsphenamin. Because of its ready solubility in small quantities of water and its comparative freedom from irritating properties, sulpharsphenamin is particularly suited for intramuscular injection. In fact, some operators even prefer giving it by this route, urging that when given in this manner it is absorbed and eliminated more slowly, and consequently is more effective than when administered intravenously.

Stokes and Behn¹ report favorably on the use of sulpharsphenamin, particularly when given epifascially. They call attention, however, to its "distinctly increased tendency to cutaneous reactions as compared with the more familiar arsphenamines." Raiziss, Severac and Moetsch² have found that sulpharsphenamin, based on trypanocidal tests, was considerably inferior to arsphenamin and at most one-half as efficient . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Chief of Departments of Genito-Urinary and Skin Diseases, U. S. Public Health Service Venereal Clinic and Attending Dermatologist, Levi Memorial Hospital HOT SPRINGS, ARK.

Footnotes
Published with permission of the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service.

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