>>Does anyone really believe in 'Scarlatina'? If so, how do you diagnose it?
>>Paul Caldwell
>
>My understanding of scarletina is this.
>
>Several types of group A beta haemolytic strep produce an
>"erythrogenic" toxin that is responsible for the unusually
>red/pink hue of this rash that looks physically little more
>than staining but can eventually desquamate, the latter most frequently
>seen on the palms. It goes along with the strawberry tongue
>(thank you Hakim) and spares the skin round the lips
>
snip
>Then it was called "scarlet fever". "Scarletina" is the same disease
>but the term is used generally to reflect the less virulent
>nature of the modern version, namely, streptococcal tonsillitis
>with a scarletiniform rash and no complications.
>
>HOWEVER. There are some signs that the tide may have turned.
>
>Doug Jenkinson
>Keyworth Health Centre, Bunny Lane, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5JU.
>[log in to unmask] V. 0115 937 3527 F. 0115 937 6781
>
We were taught , just after the last war, that the desquamation was
typically 'branny', like flakes of bran. Scarlet fever was by then already
rare, however, and I personally never saw a case in the UK. In dark-skinned
countries, where I spent the next 30 years, there was little point in
looking for such a rash.
(ScarlEt the fever, but scarlAt the [latin] name)
Senior lurker
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|