- Email: [email protected]
Effects of immunization upon vaccine skin reactions
627
SOCIETY PROCE,EDINGS
Effects of Imnunization NEW
YORK
CITY.
Upoa Vaccine Slain Reactions.
M. D. TO~UART,
(Abstract.)
Immediate (early) and delayed (late) skin reactions following intracutaneous vaccine injections were described and defined. An analysis of data from the case histories of 33 patients tested and treated with autogenous vamines, for various types of bacterial allergy, was presented in the form of tables and charts. These data appeared to indicate:
1. That regardless of the degree of success of vaccine treatment, the relation of th.e early or wheal reaction to the injection of vaccines remained substantially unchanged. 2. That regression of the late vaccine skin reaction, on the other hand, occurred in the majority of successfully treated patients but failed to occur in most of the patients who received no benefit from vaccine treatment. Such regression also failed to occur in the skin reactions produced by vaccines not used in treatment. 3. That the degree of regression or diminution late vaccine skin reaction was in direct proportion provement in the patient’s symptoms.
in intensity of the to the degree of im-
The following conclusions seemed to be warranted : 1. That the late type of vaccine skin reaction, in addition to being a useful guide in the selection of vaccines to be used in treatment, is also an indicator of the progress of desensitization to bacteria in vaccine trleated patients. 2. That decrease in intensity of the late skin reaction to vaccine, occu.rring synchronously with decrease in the symptoms of a patient during properly conducted vaccine treatment, appears to point to a parallelism between those symptoms and a specific sensitization to the organisms contained in the vaccine. DISCUSSION
DR. WARREN T. VAUGHAN.-I think we are all very much in the same condition so far as bacterial allergy is concerned. We want to know more ablout it, and we hope the other fellow will undertake a lot of work on. the subject. I know we are all glad that Dr. Touart, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Famulener, Dr. Brown, and some of the others, a,re working on it. It is hard to see just where these observations are getting us, but they are bound to lead somewhere. I could not help wondering what possible connection there was between these observations and those recent on.es by Rich on the disappearance of the tuberculin type of reaction. He has found that experimentally tuberculin desensitization does not diminish tubercle bacillus immunity in animals. This would suggest that desensitization therapy does not decrease immunity to infection. I wonder whether Dr. Tonart has any suggestions to make on this. I think the observations of Dr. Rich are especially interesting because we are injecting so much material into people who often ask, “Won’t it make me more susceptible to colds or other infections?”
SOCIETY PROCE,EDINGS
Effects of Imnunization NEW
YORK
CITY.
Upoa Vaccine Slain Reactions.
M. D. TO~UART,
(Abstract.)
Immediate (early) and delayed (late) skin reactions following intracutaneous vaccine injections were described and defined. An analysis of data from the case histories of 33 patients tested and treated with autogenous vamines, for various types of bacterial allergy, was presented in the form of tables and charts. These data appeared to indicate:
1. That regardless of the degree of success of vaccine treatment, the relation of th.e early or wheal reaction to the injection of vaccines remained substantially unchanged. 2. That regression of the late vaccine skin reaction, on the other hand, occurred in the majority of successfully treated patients but failed to occur in most of the patients who received no benefit from vaccine treatment. Such regression also failed to occur in the skin reactions produced by vaccines not used in treatment. 3. That the degree of regression or diminution late vaccine skin reaction was in direct proportion provement in the patient’s symptoms.
in intensity of the to the degree of im-
The following conclusions seemed to be warranted : 1. That the late type of vaccine skin reaction, in addition to being a useful guide in the selection of vaccines to be used in treatment, is also an indicator of the progress of desensitization to bacteria in vaccine trleated patients. 2. That decrease in intensity of the late skin reaction to vaccine, occu.rring synchronously with decrease in the symptoms of a patient during properly conducted vaccine treatment, appears to point to a parallelism between those symptoms and a specific sensitization to the organisms contained in the vaccine. DISCUSSION
DR. WARREN T. VAUGHAN.-I think we are all very much in the same condition so far as bacterial allergy is concerned. We want to know more ablout it, and we hope the other fellow will undertake a lot of work on. the subject. I know we are all glad that Dr. Touart, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Famulener, Dr. Brown, and some of the others, a,re working on it. It is hard to see just where these observations are getting us, but they are bound to lead somewhere. I could not help wondering what possible connection there was between these observations and those recent on.es by Rich on the disappearance of the tuberculin type of reaction. He has found that experimentally tuberculin desensitization does not diminish tubercle bacillus immunity in animals. This would suggest that desensitization therapy does not decrease immunity to infection. I wonder whether Dr. Tonart has any suggestions to make on this. I think the observations of Dr. Rich are especially interesting because we are injecting so much material into people who often ask, “Won’t it make me more susceptible to colds or other infections?”