[Skip to Navigation]
February 1926


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.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1926;13(2):234-236. doi:10.1001/archderm.1926.02370140100008

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

Add or change institution