[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.158.163. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 1924

FATE OF HEXAMETHYLENAMIN IN THE BODY AND ITS BEARING ON SYSTEMIC ANTISEPSIS

Author Affiliations

SAN FRANCISCO

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

Arch Intern Med (Chic). 1924;34(4):511-528. doi:10.1001/archinte.1924.00120040097009
Abstract

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

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