Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sabath, L. D.
Right arrow Articles by Burleson, V. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sabath, L. D.
Right arrow Articles by Burleson, V. A.
(Chest. 1966;50:47-56.)
© 1966 American College of Chest Physicians

Evaluation of a New Mucolytic Agent

Leon D. Sabath M.D.1; Arthur A. Sasahara M.D.2; and Virginia A. Burleson 3

1 Associate in Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Research Associate, Thorndike Memorial Laboratory, Boston City Hospital, Boston
2 Assistant Chief, Medical Service and Director, Cardiopulmonary Laboratory, Veterans Administration Hospital, West Roxbuty; Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School
3 Research Assistant, Veterans Administration Hospital, West Roxbury

A controlled study was performed to determine whether an ascorbic acid-percarbonate-copper sulfate mixture would be of value in treating chronic bronchitis. A secondary purpose was to evaluate some methods of studying mucolytic agents. The drug Gumox was administered by inhalation to nine patients, each of whom on a different day also received isotonic saline solution as control material. The immediate physiologic effect of the drug mixture was not significantly different from that of the saline control, both being associated with comparable improvements in the one-second vital capacity (1-sec. VC), maximal expiratory flow rate (MEFR) and maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV). However, the delayed effect of the drug, registered one day after treatment, showed further improvement in all three functions tested, while these values following saline treatment had returned to or toward the starting baseline.

The mean viscosity (measured with the Brookfield cone-plate viscometer) of sputum expectorated by patients on drug or saline treatment was not significantly different from that produced on no treatment. However, sputum samples incubated for one hour at 37°C. with equal volumes of either saline or drug solution were generally less viscous than unincubated samples but not significautly different from each other. Neither patient treatment with drug or saline solution nor sputum incubation with drug or saline resulted in significant changes in sputum osmolality.

It is concluded that the drug may be of value in treating chronic bronchitis because a significant improvement in the 1- sec. VC was associated with its use. However, confirmation with observations over a longer period of time in a larger number of subjects, using a control of comparable osmolality seems desirable. The physiologic studies were considered more meaningful than the sputum viscosity and osmolality studies in assessing the value of a potentially useful drug for treating chronic bronchitis.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1966 by the American College of Chest Physicians.