This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

MAX J. FOX, M.D.; NORVAN F. GORDON, M.D.

Arch Intern Med. 1944;74(1):1-3.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

During the past twenty years the treatment of scarlet fever has been radically changed by new technics which have become available. Three types of therapy are now possible: (1) chemotherapy with sulfonamide compounds; (2) administration of commercial antitoxin, and (3) administration of convalescent serum. An analysis of these various therapeutic measures is pertinent if the serious effects of this disease are to be combated successfully.

In 1940, Fox and Hardgrove¹ compared azosulfamide (disodium 4-sulfamidophenyl-2'azo-7'-acetylamino-1' - hydroxynaphthalene-3',6' disulfonate) with convalescent serum for the therapy of scarlet fever. It was demonstrated that this sulfonamide compound had no appreciable effect on the syndrome caused by the erythrogenic toxin, whereas the convalescent serum produced an immediate response. Azosulfamide was of value in treating specific complications, such as streptococcemia, meningitis and surgically inaccessible foci but was of no value for the toxic phase or type of the disease. French² noted similar results in a well . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
MILWAUKEE

From the South View Hospital of the Milwaukee Health Department and the Department of Internal Medicine, Marquette University School of Medicine.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?