London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Holborn 1927
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Holborn Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
TABLE V—continued.
| Re-Schick tested after an interval of years or fraction of years. | Number retested after this interval. | No. found positive. | Age in years and sex of positives when first tested. | Negative to 2nd re-Schick test and total of T.A.T. or T.A.F. given in all. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/12 | 13 ( 5 8) | 1 | 4. F. | †Neg. ; 5 c.cm | |
| 11/12 | 5(3 2) | 1 | 1, M. | Neg ; 4 c.cm. | |
| 1 | 7(1 6) | 1 | 9/12 F. | Neg. ; 4 c.cm. | |
| 1.2 | 84 (41 43) | 15 | (a) 1, F. | Neg. ; 4 c.cm. | |
| (b) 2, M. | Neg. ; 4 c.cm. | ||||
| (c) 2, M. | — | ||||
| (d) 2, M. | Neg. ; 4 c.cm | ||||
| (e) 2, F. | Neg. ; 4 c cm. | ||||
| (j) 6, M. | Neg. ; 4 c.cm. | ||||
| (g) 7, F. | Neg. ; 4 c.cm. | ||||
| (h) 8, F. | — | ||||
| (i) 9, M. | - | ||||
| (j) 9, F. | — | ||||
| (k) 11, F. | — | ||||
| (l) 12, M. | — | ||||
| (m) 12, F. | — | ||||
| (n) Ad., F. | Neg. ; 5 c.cm. | ||||
| (o) 1, F. | Neg ; 4 c.cm. | ||||
| 2.3 | 60 (26 34) | 6 | (a) 2, F. | Neg. ; 6 c.cm. | |
| (b) 5, F. | Neg. ; 4 c.cm. | ||||
| (c) 12, F. | — | ||||
| (d) 2, F. | — | ||||
| (e) 1, M. | — | ||||
| (f) 2, F. | — | ||||
| Total | 555 (250 305) | 78 | M. 32 F. 46 | 37 T.A.T. + 5 T.A.T. | |
* Another child in same family (F.), aged 4 years, was negative.
† Three children in this group were members of one family: 2 negatives (M.), aged 2 years,
(F.), aged B years; 1 posiiive (F.). aged 4 years.
In addition, one child re-Scliiek tested 15 months after 1 c.cm. T.A.T., was found positive
and two children retested after 3 c.cm. were on the information given by the mother
considered to be slightly positive. Sixty-six of those positive on re-Schicking have been
further inoculated, and 42 of them further tested and found negative. Efforts are being
made to continue the inoculation of the remainder. As seen in the footnote to Table V
one child (F., aged 4 years) was positive to the second re-Schick after 6 c.cm., but was
negative after 8 c.cm.; this child was the eldest of four girls; the three younger ones were
negative after the routine 3 c cm.; two of these receiving their routine injections on the
same day and from the same batch of antitoxin as the eldest.
Of the 555 persons retested, 250 were males and 305 were females. Among the positive
were 32 males and 46 females. Neither age nor interval seems to have any influence on the
phenomenon. It would seem conceivable that some batches of toxin antitoxin might prove
to be less efficacious than others. An analysis of the results obtained in Holborn would seem
to indicate clearly that this is so; also that the toxoid antitoxin used was as efficacious as
the toxin antitoxin. The toxin antitoxin mixtures used were all 3 L + per c.cm. mixtures,
tho toxoid antitoxin contained toxoid diluted 1-10 with added antitoxin. (Table VI.)
Use has also been made of T.A.F. (flocculated toxin-antitoxin) in the case of
23 persons found Schick positive. Of these 23 persons, 21 have been retested;
be noted that in five of these children the reaction to the first test was so slight
that they were recorded as suitable for immunisation with only one dose if T.A.T.
11 of these (nine children and two adults) were negative to the retest. Tt should
had been used.
Ten (nine children and one adult) were po itive to the re-Schick test; of these,
six were further inoculated with T.A.F. (three of these were negative to the second
re-Schick), four were further inoculated with toxin-antitoxin (two of these were
negative to the retest). The use of T.A.F. has been discontinued for the time
being.