THE CLOTTING EFFICIENCY OF THROMBOPLASTIC

AGENTS: A REPLY.

PAUL J. HANZLIK
From the Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Western

Reserve University, Cleveland

Received for publication, June 8, 1920

In a recent issue (1) of this Journal F. Fenger of Armour and

Company has taken us to task about the variable results on
clotting activity obtained with one specimen of Thromboplastin
(Armour) on different beef plasmas. The criticism is limited
in scope but the conclusions are so sweeping and misleading
that I have asked the editor of the Journal to grant me brief
space in which I may emphasize essential points which have
been undoubtedly overlooked by Fenger in his general charge
of carelessness, neglect and unfairness.
The results of our work have been previously published (2)
in sufficient detail and are available to anyone who is interested.
Restated, our aim was “. . . . to compare the thrombo-
plastic activity of several different products; theactivity of
fresh and old preparations. . . .“ This was accomplished
by the application of the method of Howell and that described
in N. N. R., testing several different products on the same
plasma, using kephalin as the standard and saline as control.
In other words all conditions of the test were the same except
the product. Such a procedure necessarily gives an idea of the
comparative value of the different products. Therefore, no
matter how variable the plasmas the results obtained must give
an idea as to the comparative value of the products. In other
words, the leading object of our study was not the method of
testing, but the comparative behavior of different preparations.
+ In this respect, it is obvious that Fenger misleads himself.
He cites the variable results of several of our experiments with
35
36 PAUL J. HANZLIK

Thromboplastin (Armour) on different plasmas, admitting the

variable response of oxalate plasmas by his own method of testing.
Fenger does not mention the results with other thromboplastic
agents used in these same experiments. Without these it would
he obviously impossible to obtain an idea of the thromboplastic
activity of rrhrofl.bopla5tjfl (Armour) as compared with other
agents. As a matter of fact the results obtained with Thrombo-
plastin (Armour) when compared with different agents on the
same plasma and on different plasmas agreed in the same direction
and were quite fai’orable. In other words the results from differ-
ent experiments made at different times were concordant. This
satisfies completely “the most important criterion of any test
oi method of analysis,” about which Fenger interrogates US as
follows, “Does the method of procedure give concordant results,
not only when duplicate tests are made simultaneously, but also
when the same test is repeated at different times?”
Now as to the variability in the clotting time of different
plasmas with Thromboplastin (Armour), the item of our work
which Fenger urges so heavily against us. Variability, of course,
is perfectly obvious in the results of table 2 of our paper not only
with Thromboplastin (Armour), hut also with all the other
agents tested. This is as would be expected with any biological
reaction known to me, even the clotting time of blood and plasma.
All of our results were recorded as obtained under the conditions
set forth in o#{241}r
paper. No results were eliminated. No selec-
tion was practiced. Incidentally, I know of no publications or
data by Fenger either as to the variability in response of different
plasmas or as to results with different thromboplastic agents.
None are presented in his criticism, although he freely admits
that variability in plasmas exists. Concerning his method of
selection or preparation of a suitable plasma, he leaves us entirely
in doubt. This is highly regrettable. The publication of all
results, whether positive or negative, favorable or unfavorable,
is very desirable indeed. This should remove such misunder-
standing and suspicion illustrated by Fenger’s criticism.
 CLOTTING EFFICIENCY OF THROMBOPLASTIC AGENTS 37

CONCLUSIONS

It is obvious that Fenger’s criticism of the variability of

results with Thromboplastin (Armour) in our work on the clotting
activity of various thromboplastic agents is not pertinent.
The methods of testing used by us, that of Howell, and a
modification of this by Fenger (N. N. R.), are admittedly simple
of application, and, so far as these methods are reliable at all,
our technique was reliable. The data and results reported by
us are correct, and we can not follow Fenger’s advice to accept
only certain results. On the contrary it is necessary to record
and report all results, and such was the case in our work. Under
these conditions it is obvious that our conclusions were as fair
as the analysis of the results warranted. Until Fenger’publishes
results or presents some evidence concerning the comparative
value of different thromboplastic agents, inclirsive of the methods
of testing these, his criticism of our work must remain valueless
and unfounded. .

REFERENCES

(1) FENGER, F.: J. Pharm. Exp. Therap., 1920, xv, 167.

(2) HANZLIK AND WEIDENTHAL: J. Pharm. Exp. Therap., 1919, xiv, 157.

THE JOUR. OP PUARM. AND EXPER. THERA.P., VOL. XVI, NO. 1