[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.250. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
March 22, 1924

IS SCARLET FEVER MERELY A STREPTOCOCCIC ANAPHYLAXIS?FOUR CASES OF SCARLATINA APPARENTLY MANIFESTED ONLY BY INFECTION OF MASTOID PROCESS AND ANTRUM OF HIGH MORE

Author Affiliations

WASHINGTON, D. C.

JAMA. 1924;82(12):956-957. doi:10.1001/jama.1924.02650380024008
Abstract

One of the strongly suggestive facts as to the identity of the bacterial cause of scarlet fever is the well known impossibility of differential diagnosis in some cases of streptococcic septicemia in which every classical symptom of scarlet fever may be found. While observers have considered as scarlatina the conditions found associated with severe burns, and after childbirth and surgical operations, showing many of the typical symptoms of that disease, it is almost certain that they have to deal with a streptococcic septicemia. As long ago as 1895, Bergé,1 writing on the origin of scarlet fever, regarded it as a disease produced by the streptococcus in one of its virulent forms. Similarly, Dale speaks of it as a streptococcus anaphylaxis superimposed on a streptococcic infection of the throat, or on a streptococcus septicemia from some other portal of entry. He asks, What, after all, is the difference between a

×