Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:43:56.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An investigation of the effects of certain substitutes for morphine and heroin upon the passage of food along the alimentary tract of the human subject

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. Norman Myers  and
S. Whately Davidson
G. Norman Myers
Affiliation:
From the Pharmacological Laboratory, University of Cambridge
S. Whately Davidson
Affiliation:
From the Pharmacological Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effect of heroin, morphine, Dilaudid, Dicodid and Eukodol upon the human alimentary tract are described from observations involving the use of the barium meal and X-ray methods.

2. The effects of Dilaudid closely resemble those of morphine. Dilaudid produces a condition of increased tone in the pyloric and ileo-colic sphincters resulting in delayed emptying of the stomach contents into the duodenum and a delayed passage of the intestinal contents into the caecum.

3. Dicodid has a much weaker action upon the pyloric and ileo-colic sphincters than either morphine, heroin, Dilaudid or Eukodol. It causes only a negligible delay in the passage of food up to the 3 hr. stage, it being normal at the 6 hr. stage owing to a hastening of the motility rate.

4. Eukodol has an action resembling that of morphine and is described.

5. All these drugs possess well-marked analgesic properties.

6. No gross rectal symptoms were observed in any of the subjects under observation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , July 1938 , pp. 432 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

References

REFERENCES

Eddy, N. (1933). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 100, 1032.Google Scholar
Grubner, C. M., Thomas, J. E., Crider, J. O. & Brundage, J. T. (1936). J. Pharmacol. 57, 170.Google Scholar
Heinekamp, W. J. R. (1923). J. Pharmacol. 20, 107.Google Scholar
Van Leersum, (1918). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 71, 783.Google Scholar
Magnus, R. (1906). Pflüg. Arch. ges. Physiol. 115, 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, R. (1908). Pflüg. Arch. ges. Physiol. 122, 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahlo, (1913). Dtsch. Arch. klin. Med. 110, 562.Google Scholar
Myers, G. N. (1933). Brit. Med. J. 2, 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nothnagel, (1882). Virchows Arch. 79, 1.Google Scholar
Pal, (1900). Wien. med. Pr. 41, 2040.Google Scholar
Pancoast, H. K. & Hopkins, A. H. (1915). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 65, 2220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant, O. H. & Miller, G. H. (1926). J. Pharmacol. 27, 361.Google Scholar
Rassers, J. R. F. (1916). Arch. néerl. Physiol. 1, 71.Google Scholar
Rodari, (1909). Ther. Mh. (Halbmh.), 23, 540.Google Scholar
Schapiro, N. (1913). Pflüg. Arch. ges. Physiol. 151, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, R. (1912). Fortschr. Röntgenstr. 19, 1.Google Scholar
Spitzer, (1891). Virchows Arch. 123, 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlmann, & Abelin, (1920). Z. exp. Path. Ther. 21, 58, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehbe, M. (1913). Ther. Mh. (Halbmh.), 27, 406.Google Scholar
Zunz, E. (1909). Biochem. Zbl. 9, 208.Google Scholar