Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Croydon]
This page requires JavaScript
66
however, one, aged 7 years, was retested after a further 6 months
and found to have reverted to a strong Schick positive. She was
given 2 injections of 1.0 cc T.A.M. and after a further 2 months
was found to be Schick negative. She is to be kept under observation.
Another of the negative reactors, aged 6 years, was 8 months
later admitted to hospital with Clinical Diphtheria. The remaining
one of the 9 children retested after one injection of A.P.T. was
very definitely Schick positive, and received two injections of 1.0cc
T.A.M. She had not attended for a further Schick Test by the
end of the year.
Two children, Schick negative to primary test, were reported
as having received antitoxin (dose unknown) 4 weeks previous to
test. On another test being carried out 6 months later, both were
positive and were duly immunised.
One child, aged 5, who gave a Schick negative reaction when
submitted to a test gave the following history:—She received one
injection of A.P.T. in April, 1935, was never Schick Tested subsequently,
and developed Clinical Diphtheria in November, 1935.
She was stated at the time to have been seriously ill.
Previous, Intercurrent and Subsequent Diphtheria.—Of 31
children giving a history of previous Clinical Diphtheria, and treatment
therefor in hospital, 25 were Schick negative, and 6 Schick
positive.
Of 7 who gave a history of previous isolation as carriers, 0
were Schick negative and 1 Schick positive.
One child, aged 5 years, became a carrier during the course of
immunisation. Schick Tested 3.2.36, she gave a moderately positive
reaction ; she received 1.0 cc T.A.M. and on 20.2.30 was
removed to hospital as a result of a positive nasal swab. She was
discharged after 10 days and later completed her treatment.
A second child, aged 7 years, developed Clinical Diphtheria
7 weeks after her 3rd injection of T.A.M. The history was as
follows:—27.4.36 Schick positive, received 3 x 1.0 cc T.A.M. at
weekly intervals. An aunt, living in same house, was removed
hospital 3.7.36, suffering from Diphtheria. The child was excluded
from School, apparently quite well, and nose and throat swabs
taken, both being reported positive 4.7.36. She was admitted to
hospital, still apparently well, and a Virulence Test carried out
after admission proved to be positive, the guinea pig dying