Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:44:51.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A trial of reinforcing doses of diphtheria toxoid absorbed through the buccal mucosa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Diphtheria toxoid lozenges were given to eighty-eight children aged 10–12 years who had previously been immunized by parenteral injection, and the antitoxin titres before and after administration were compared with those in a similar group of forty-six children who received formol toxoid by injection.

The results showed that a course of two lozenges at an interval of 1 week was a satisfactory means of reinforcing immunity in the children. The antitoxin response was less than that after injection, but a substantial response occurred in the children with low initial titres.

It is suggested that the lozenges might replace an injection as a means of reinforcing immunity in children aged 10–12 years and that they might be a valuable means of rapidly reinforcing the immunity of a large number of children in an epidemic.

The lozenges must be given under supervision to ensure that the children allow them to dissolve slowly in their mouths.

We should like to thank Dr J. D. Abbott of the Public Health Laboratory, Manchester, for separating the sera.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , December 1963 , pp. 425 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

References

Barr, M. & Cunliffe, A. C. (1954). Purified formol toxoid in the re-immunization of young adults against diphtheria. Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 13, 98.Google ScholarPubMed
Barr, M., Stamm, W. P. & Stevens, P. J. (1957). Immunity to diphtheria. Evaluation of Schick test as a preliminary to immunization. Brit. med. J. i, 1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, G. (1944). Diphtheria antigens: some unusual types of stimuli. Med. Offr. 71, 141.Google Scholar
Bousfield, G. (1945). Restoration of diphtheria immunity without injections. Toxoid pastilles by mouth. Brit. med. J. i, 833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, G. & King-Brown, W. W. (1938). Diphtheria immunisation with finely atomised formol toxoid. Lancet, i, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockburn, W. C., Bradstreet, C. M. P., Bailey, M. E. & Ungar, J. (1961). Reinforcing doses of diphtheria toxoid absorbed through the buccal mucosa. Brit. med. J. ii, 1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. T., Davey, E. L. & Halpern, K. C. (1940). Antitoxin response to concentrated diphtheria toxoid applied to nasal mucous membrane. Canad. J. publ. Hlth, 31, 376.Google Scholar
Greenberg, L. & Fleming, D. S. (1950). Experience with oral immunization against diphtheria and tetanus in human subjects. Canad. J. publ. Hlth, 41, 445.Google ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, L. & Roblin, M. (1949). Schick test reaction, serum antitoxin titre and resistance to lethal doses of diphtheria toxin in guinea pigs. Canad. J. publ. Hlth, 40, 112.Google ScholarPubMed
Jensen, C. (1937). Active immunization against diphtheria by the combined subcutaneous and intranasal method. Proc. R. Soc. Med. 30, 1117.Google ScholarPubMed
Lancet (1941). Dangers of nasal immunisation. Lancet, i, 153.Google Scholar
Masucci, P., Gold, H. & DeFalco, R. J. (1948). Restoration of diphtheria immunity without injections (Bousfield's Method). J. Pediat. 32, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar