You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 126 No. 7, July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Announcement
 This Article
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

50 Years Ago in the Archives

Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(7):963.

The steroids have become popular, as they are simpler to administer and occasion no discomfort to the patient. However, I believe the results with intravenous typhoid vaccine are immediately more dramatic and its use entails less expense to the patient. Many patients who have not responded to steroids have responded to the use of intravenous typhoid vaccine. Some patients will respond to one form of foreign-protein therapy and not to another. I recall 1 patient who developed uveitis after cataract extraction. Typhoid vaccine produced no effect but the eye became better after the first injection of milk. In another case of nongranulomatous iritis, the injection of typhoid vaccine did no good nor did the injection of milk, but the intramuscular injection of diphtheria antitoxin resulted in a prompt cure. . . . Since it takes 1 to 3 hours for fever to develop after a typhoid-vaccine injection, the treatment can be given in the office, which I have done for over 30 years.

Reference: Lebensohn JE. In discussion of: Nielsen RH, Kirby TJ. The modern treatment of uveitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1957;58(1):100.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.