August 20, 1949

THIOARSENITES IN AMEBIASISA Clinical Appraisal of New Amebacides

Author Affiliations

San Francisco; San José, Costa Rica; Memphis, Tenn.
From the Divisions of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and Pathology and the Parasitology and Mycology Section of the Division of Medicine, University of California Medical School, San Francisco (22); The John Gaston Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., and the Hospital San Tuan de Dios. San José. Costa Rica.

JAMA. 1949;140(16):1251-1256. doi:10.1001/jama.1949.02900510001001

At the beginning of World War II, a number of articles appeared on the therapy of amebiasis,1 in anticipation of an increasing need for control. These were largely generalizations on the use of drugs introduced within the preceding ten years, notably carbarsone, viofrom® (iodochlorohydroxyquinoline) and diodoquin® (diiodo-hydroxyquinoline). Nelson1a stated, "... when a number of different agents are in use in the treatment of a particular pathologic state or infection, none of the agents is completely satisfactory. In no field is this more true than in the treatment of amebiasis.'

Emetine, long held by the British to be effective, either as the hydrochloride for parenteral use or as the bismuth iodide for oral administration, should not be considered a curative agent. It will control symptoms of acute dysentery and hepatitis, because it accumulates in the liver.2 The encysted forms of Endameba histolytica are not killed by therapeutic levels of

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview