202  U.  S.  P.  Standard  for  Pituitary  Extract.  { Am-  J°£r-  v**™- 
Roth  (4)  gives  a  table  in  which  he  states  that  a  1  :  1,000,000  dilu- 
tion of  fresh  posterior  lobe  from  a  steer  is  equivalent  to  1  120,000,000 
B-imid.  (Although  he  says  in  his  heading  "  Concentration  of  Ex- 
tract," it  is  assumed  that  he  actually  means  concentration  of  fresh 
posterior  lobe,  since  in  a  previous  paragraph  he  states  "  the  amounts 
mentioned  in  the  following  tables  are  in  terms  of  fresh  material.") 
Reasoning  from  these  figures,  if  a  commercial  extract  were  made 
from  such  material  as  the  steer's  lobe  here  mentioned,  without  loss 
of  activity,  so  as  to  represent  .2  to  .3  gram  per  1  Cc,  then  we 
should  expect  such  an  extract  to  be  equivalent  to  the  standard  in 
two  tenths  to  three  tenths  as  great  a  dilution,  or  1  : 200,000  to 
1  :  300,000.  It  may  be  noticed  that  these  figures  compare  favorably 
with  those  I  have  obtained  in  testing  first-class  commercial  extracts. 
If  finished  commercial  extracts  are  equivalent  to  the  standard  in 
dilutions  of  only  1  : 20,000,  as  stated  in  the  U.  S.  P.,  what  is  the 
explanation  of  this  great  difference?  Are  manufacturers  suffer- 
ing a  loss  in  activity  amounting  to  90  per  cent,  or  more,  due  to  their 
manufacturing  processes?  Why  is  it  that  extemporaneous  prepa- 
rations as  made  by  Roth  and  Fenger  will  show  ten  to  fifteen  times  as 
great  activity  as  is  shown  by  carefully  made  commercial  prepara- 
tions ?  Is  this,  in  truth,  the  case,  or  is  the  standard  as  stated  at 
fault?  From  my  experience  I  would  say  that  the  pharmacopoeial 
standard  for  liquor  hypophysis  is  about  one  tenth  that  of  average 
commercial  pituitary  extracts.  These  pituitary  extracts  have  been 
on  the  market  for  several  years  and  have  been  used  by  physicians 
everywhere,  who  have  become  familiar  with  their  degree  of  activity 
and  have  become  accustomed  to  giving  certain  doses.  It  seems 
advisable,  therefore,  that  instead  of  lowering  the  activity  of  pituitary 
extracts  to  meet  the  U.  S.  P.  requirement,  the  U.  S.  P.  requirement 
should  be  raised  so  as  to  compare  favorably  with  these  preparations 
which  have  become  so  well  known. 
Finally,  I  wish  to  express  my  obligation  to  Dr.  A.  L.  Walters, 
under  whose  supervision  this  work  has  been  carried  out. 
Literature  Cited. 
1.  Jr.  Pharm.  and  Exp.  Therapeutics,  1912-13,  Xo.  4,  p.  75. 
2.  Hygienic  Laboratory  Bulletin  Xo.  100. 
3.  Jr.  Biological  Chem.,  1916,  vol.  25,  p.  417. 
4.  Hygienic  Laboratory  Bulletin  Xo.  109.    (Table  9.). 
Department  of  Experimental  Medicine, 
Eli  Lilly  &  Co.,  Indianapolis,  Indiana. 
