This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
At a time when the medical profession has been subject to criticism for alleged disregard of human safety in pursuing clinical investigation which appears to be more curious than sane, the report of Resnik and Shelley (196:740, 1966) relating to the production of anaphylaxis with the penicilloylpolylysine (PPL) skin test should not go without comment and criticism.Prior to the production of anaphylaxis in the reported subject they had satisfactorily demonstrated specific PPL sensitivity. I cannot imagine what was in the authors' minds when, following a systemic reaction to the PPL skin test, this test was repeated using more concentrated material. Certainly, on the basis of past experience with reactions of this type, one would have anticipated and predicted the more severe reaction (anaphylaxis) which occurred.The potential hazard of anaphylaxis had been pointed out by Drs. Ettinger and Kaye (New Eng J Med271:1105,
Lee ML. Penicilloyl-Polylysine Skin-Test Reactions. JAMA. 1966;197(3):226. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03110030120052