No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Suiphathiazole Snuff for Diphtheria Carriers SIR,-In the article by Drs. M. 'E. Delafield and Edith Straker and Prof. W. W. C. Topley on antiseptic snuff (February 1, p. 145) it was suggested that in view of its action on diphtheroids, sulphathiazole snuff might prove effective in the treatment of nasal carriers of the diphtheria bacillus. A child developed diphtheria after being in hospital for two weeks. A search was made for a carrier. It was discovered that the nasal swabs from two nurses contained the diplitheria bacillus. In the case of Nurse A. a profuse growth was obtained. In the case of Nurse B. only a few bacilli were found and the swab was negative when repeated. Both nurses were given a sulphathiazole snuff. Following the suggestions in the article referred to above, the proportion of sulphathiazole was increased to 30 parts with 70 parts of magnesium carbonate, and the snuff given more frequently. Progress was as follows: Nurse A.-Schick test negative. First day, snuff taken twohourly. Some stinging in the nose and watering of the eyes in the evening. Second day, nasal swabs negative (taken 10 a.m.). Snuff taken six times (approximately three-hourly). No discomfort. Third day, nasal swabs taken before any snuff had been taken proved negative. Snuff taken four times. No discomfort. Fourth day, nasal swabs negative. Snuff taken four times. Fifth day, no further snuff taken. Seventh day, nasal swabs negative. Twelfth day, nasal swabs negative. Presumed free from infection. Nuirse B.-Snuff taken as above for three days. All nasal swabs negative. Seventh day, nasal swabs negative. Presumed free from infection. Nurse B. can hardly be considered to have been a carrier. The rapid way in which Nurse A. was freed from infection suggests that the method is worthy of a thorough trial. We are indebted to Miss Lucy Wills for her help and suggestions.-We are, etc., A

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract