Advertisement

Chancroid

  • Ambrose J. King
Chapter
Part of the Encyclopedia of Urology book series (HDBUROL, volume 9 / 2)

Abstract

This condition, variously known as chancroid, soft chancre, ulcus molle, chancre mou and Ducrey’s infection, was defined by Sullivan (1940) as “an acute localised autoinoculable genito-infectious disease caused by the streptobacillus of Ducrey (Haemophilus ducreyi), characterized clinically by ulcerations at the sites of inoculation, and frequently accompanied by inflammatory swelling and suppuration of the regional lymph nodes”. In discussing the incidence of this disease, the same writer (ibid) stated that it was very difficult to judge its frequency in various populations, because of lack of information and unreliability of diagnoses. In western countries the incidence of the disease seemed to be consistently low, although minor local outbreaks were reported from time to time. In eastern countries, and in tropical and sub-tropical regions generally, the incidence was far higher, and among troops stationed in such areas it was liable to rise to a level five or ten times as high as in other areas. Asin (1952) working among Service personnel in Korea, found that chancroid was the most prevalent venereal disease, the incidence of chancroid, gonorrhoea and syphilis being in the ratio of 14:8:1 among white troops and 21:11:1 among negroes. One of the striking features of reported figures is the disproportionately low incidence in women, which perhaps reflects the difficulty of making this diagnosis in the female. Rauschkolb (1939), in a study of the condition in Cleveland, Ohio, found that it resulted invariably from promiscuous intercourse among what he described as the socially unenlightened and economically unfortunate. Of 479 patients in his series, 322 were negroes and 157 were white, a ratio of 2:1, whereas the ratio of negroes to whites in the population of Cleveland was 1:12. The disease is nearly always venereally acquired, and therefore extragenital lesions are rare. Infection seems to occur readily at sites of trauma or of other lesions. In Rauschkolb’s series (ibid) there were five instances in which chancroids developed at the sites of scabietic lesions. Lossing and Allen (1956) stated that only 34 cases of chancroid were reported from the whole of Canada in 1954, mainly in seamen and Service men who acquired the infection abroad. Tottie (1956) stated that the reported cases of chancroid in Sweden numbered 3,000 in 1919. The incidence had steadily decreased and now only 10 new cases were reported each year. Willcox (1956) stated that the true incidence of chancroid throughout Africa was unknown but it was apparent that it was the venereal disease next in importance to syphilis and gonorrhoea, and in some places it was more prevalent than primary syphilis. It was a big enough problem to interfere materially with the economic life of the continent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

A. Incidence

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Lossing, E. H., and R. H. Allen: Venereal diseases in Canada. Brit. J. vener. Dis. 32, 150 (1956).Google Scholar
  3. Rauschkolb, J. E.: Circumcision in treatment of chancroidal lesions of male genitalia. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 39, 319 (1939).Google Scholar
  4. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar
  5. Tottie, M.: Venereal disease problem in Sweden today. Brit. J. vener. Dis. 32, 157 (1956).Google Scholar
  6. Willcox, R. R.: The importance of chancroid in Africa. J. roy. Army med. Cps 102, 15 (1956).Google Scholar

B. The causative organism : I.Characteristics

  1. Beeson, P. B.: Studies on chancroid. IV. The Ducrey bacillus: Growth requirements and inhibition by antibiotic agents. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 61, 81 (1946).Google Scholar
  2. Beeson, P. B., and A. Heyman: Studies on chancroid. II. Efficiency of the cultural method of diagnosis. Amer. J. Syph. 29, 633 (1945).Google Scholar
  3. Deacon, W. E., D. C. Albritton, W. F. Edmund- son and S. Olansky: Study of Ducrey’s bacillus and recognition of a Gram-positive smooth phase. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 86, 261 (1954).Google Scholar
  4. Dienst, R. B.: A new preparation for intracutaneous diagnosis of chancroidal infection. Amer. J. Syph. 26, 201 (1942).Google Scholar
  5. Greenblatt, R. B., and E. S. Sanderson: The intradermal chancroid bacillary antigen test as an aid in the differential diagnosis of the venereal bubo. Amer. J. Surg. 41, 384 (1938).Google Scholar
  6. Hunt, G. A.: Cultivation of Ducrey bacillus for preparation of vaccine. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 33, 293 (1935).Google Scholar
  7. Reymann, F.: Specificity of skin tests in lymphogranuloma venereum and chancroid. Acta derm.-venereol. (Stockh.) 31, 257 (1951).Google Scholar
  8. Sanderson, E. S., and R. B. Greenblatt: The cultivation of Hemophilus Ducreyi and preparation of an antigen for intracutaneous diagnosis of chancroidal infection. Sth. med. J. (Bgham, Ala.) 30, 147 (1937).Google Scholar

II.Experimental infections

  1. Dienst, R. B.: Virulence and antigenicity of Hemophilus Ducreyi. Amer. J. Syph. 32, 289 (1948).Google Scholar
  2. Feiner, R. R., F. Mortara and E. Levenkron: Infectivity of Hemophilus Ducreyi for the rabbit and the development of skin hypersensitivity. Amer. J. Syph. 29, 71 (1945).Google Scholar
  3. Greenblatt, R. B., E. S. Sanderson, F. Mortara and H. S. Kupperman: Experimental prophylaxis of chancroid disease. Amer. J. Syph. 27, 30 (1943).Google Scholar
  4. Packer, H., and A. D. Dulaney: Diagnostic tests in the differential diagnosis of anogenital lesions. Amer. J. Syph. 31, 69 (1947).Google Scholar

III.Susceptibility in vitro

  1. Beeson, P. B., and A. Heyman: Studies on chancroid. II. Efficiency of the cultural method of diagnosis. Amer. J. Syph. 29, 633 (1945).Google Scholar
  2. Mortara, F., and M. T. Saito: Sensitivity of hemophilus Ducreyi to antibiotic and other substances in vitro. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 352 (1946).Google Scholar
  3. Tung, T., and C. N. Frazier: The in vitro action of penicillin on Hemophilus Ducreyi. Amer. J. Syph. 29, 629 (1945).Google Scholar
  4. Wetherbee, D. G., M. A. Henke, R. I. Anderson, E. J. Pulaski and D. M. Kuhns: In vitro antibiotic effects on Hemophilus Ducreyi. Amer. J. Syph. 33, 462 (1949).Google Scholar

C. Clinical findings

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Harkness, A. H.: Non-gonococcal urethritis, pp. 183–185. Edinburgh: E. and S.Livingstone 1950.Google Scholar
  3. Heyman, A.: The clinical and laboratory differentiation between chancroid and lymphogranuloma venereum. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 279 (1946).Google Scholar
  4. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar

III. Sites of involvement

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Harkness, A. H.: Non-gonococcal urethritis, p. 185. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone 1950.Google Scholar
  3. Heyman, A.: The clinical and laboratory differentiation between chancroid and lymphogranuloma venereum. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 279 (1946).Google Scholar
  4. Milian, G.: Le Chancre Mou. La Pratique Médicale Illustrée, p. 10. Paris: G. Doin et Cie. 1931.Google Scholar
  5. Rauschkolb, J. E.: Circumcision in treatment of chancroidal lesions of male genitalia. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 39, 319 (1939).Google Scholar
  6. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar

IV. Clinical characteristics in the female

  1. Harkness, A. H.: Non-gonococcal urethritis, p. 186. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone 1950.Google Scholar
  2. Heyman, A.: The clinical and laboratory differentiation between chancroid and lymphogranuloma venereum. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 279 (1946).Google Scholar
  3. Lao, D. G., and R. E. Trussell: Chancroid in women in Manila. Amer. J. Syph. 31, 277 (1947).Google Scholar

V. Extragenital chancroids

  1. Brandt, R., E. S. Sanderson and D. V. Hicks: Extragenital chancroid. Ven. Dis. Inf. 22, 89 (1941).Google Scholar
  2. Harkness, A. H.: Non-gonococcal urethritis, p. 185. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone 1950.Google Scholar
  3. Lloyd, V. E.: Case of chancroid of a finger. Brit. J. vener. Dis. 11, 259 (1935).Google Scholar
  4. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar
  5. Turell, R.: Diseases of colon and rectum. Amer. J. med. Sci. 202, 282 (1941).Google Scholar

VI. Complications

  1. Harkness, A. H.: Non-gonococcal urethritis, p. 186. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone 1950.Google Scholar
  2. Rauschkolb, J. E.: Circumcision in treatment of chancroidal lesions of male genitalia. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 39, 319 (1939).Google Scholar
  3. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar

VII. Associated disease

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Cardwell, E. S., and E. R. Pund: Malignancies related to venereal disease. J. med. Ass. Ga 29, 60 (1940).Google Scholar
  3. Greenblatt, R. B., and J. C. Wright: The significance of fusospirillosis in genital lesions. Amer. J. Syph. 20, 654 (1936).Google Scholar
  4. Milian, G.: Le chancre mou. La Pratique Médicale Illustrée, pp. 13–19. Paris: G. Doin et Cie. 1931.Google Scholar
  5. Rauschkolb, J. E.: Circumcision in treatment of chancroidal lesions of male genitalia. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 39, 319 (1939).Google Scholar
  6. Torpin, R., and R. B. Dienst: Chancroidal infection in the female. Amer. J. Syph. 22, 634 (1938).Google Scholar

D. Diagnostic tests: I.Direct smears

  1. I.Direct smearsGoogle Scholar
  2. Barritt, M. M.: An improved Pappenheim stain for detection of gonococci in smears of pus. Brit. med. J. 1943 I, 254.Google Scholar
  3. Dienst, R. B., and S. W. Gilkerson: Evaluation of the Ducrey skin test for chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 31, 65 (1947).Google Scholar
  4. Greenwald, E.: Chancroidal infection. Treatment and Diagnosis. J. Amer. med. Ass. 121, 9 (1943).Google Scholar
  5. Heyman, A.: The clinical and laboratory differentiation between chancroid and lymphogranuloma venereum. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 279 (1946).Google Scholar
  6. Heyman, A., P. B. Beeson and W. H. Sheldon: Diagnosis of chancroid. The relative efficiency of biopsies, cultures, smears, autoinoculations and skin tests. J. Amer. med. Ass. 129, 935 (1945).Google Scholar
  7. Kornblith, B. A., A. Jacob y and L. Chargin: Chancroid. Treatment with sulfathiazole and sulfanilamide. J. Amer. med. Ass. 117, 2150 (1941).Google Scholar
  8. Marin, A.: An epidemic of chancroid. Canad. med. Ass. J. 49, 120 (1943).Google Scholar
  9. Strakosch, E. A., H. W. Kendell, R. M. Craig and G. K. Schwemlein: Clinical and laboratory investigation of 370 cases of chancroid. J. invest. Derm. 6, 95 (1945).Google Scholar

II. Cultures

  1. Beeson, P. B., and A. Heyman: Studies on chancroid. II. Efficiency of the cultural method of diagnosis. Amer. J. Syph. 29, 633 (1945).Google Scholar
  2. Heyman, A.: The clinical and laboratory differentiation between chancroid and lymphogranuloma venereum. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 279 (1946).Google Scholar
  3. Sheldon, W. H., and A. Heyman: Studies on chancroid. I. Observations on the histology with an evaluation of biopsy as a diagnostic procedure. Amer. J. Path. 22, 415 (1946).Google Scholar
  4. Strakosch, E. A., H. W. Kendell, R. M. Craig and G. K. Schwemlein: Clinical and laboratory investigation of 370 cases of chancroid. J. invest. Derm. 6, 95 (1945).Google Scholar

III. The intradermal test

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, R., and R. Torpin: The dependability of the skin test in the diagnosis of lymphogranuloma venereum and chancroid, especially in the colored race. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 632 (1940).Google Scholar
  3. Dienst, R. B.: A new preparation of antigen for intracutaneous diagnosis of chancroidal infection. Amer. J. Syph. 26, 201 (1942).Google Scholar
  4. Dienst, R. B., and S. W. Gilkerson: Evaluation of the Ducrey skin test for chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 31, 65 (1947).Google Scholar
  5. Greenwald, E.: Chancroidal infection. Treatment and diagnosis. J. Amer. med. Ass. 121, 9 (1943).Google Scholar
  6. Heyman, A., and P. B. Beeson: Studies on chancroid. III. Ducrey skin reactions in negro hospital patients.J. vener. Dis. Inform. 27, 104 (1946).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Heyman, A., P. B. Beeson and W. H. Sheldon: Diagnosis of chancroid. The relative efficiency of biopsies, cultures, smears, autoinoculations and skin tests. J. Amer. med. Ass. 129, 935 (1945).Google Scholar
  8. Knott, L. W., L. H. T. Bernstein, H. Eagle, T. E. Billings, R. L. Zobel and E. G. Clark: The differential diagnosis of lymphogranuloma venereum and chancroid by laboratory and skin tests. Amer. J. Syph. 27, 657 (1943).Google Scholar
  9. Kornblith, B. A., A. Jacoby and L. Chargin: Chancroid. Treatment with sulfathiazole and sulfanilamide. J. Amer. med. Ass. 117, 2150 (1941).Google Scholar
  10. Reymann, F.: Specificity of skin tests in lymphogranuloma venereum and chancroid. Acta derm.-venereol. (Stockh.) 31, 257 (1951).Google Scholar
  11. Robinson, H. M.: Analysis of intracutaneous tests on 309 patients for lymphogranuloma venereum and chancroid. Sth. med. J. (Bgham, Ala.) 33, 144 (1940).Google Scholar
  12. Sanderson, E. S., and R. B. Greenblatt: The cultivation of Hemophilus Ducreyi and preparation of an antigen for intracutaneous diagnosis of chancroidal infection. Sth. med. J. (Bgham, Ala.) 30, 147 (1937).Google Scholar
  13. Strakosch, E. A., H. W. Kendell, R. M. Craig and G. K. Schwemlein: Clinical and laboratory investigation of 370 cases of chancroid. J. invest. Derm. 6, 95 (1945).Google Scholar
  14. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar
  15. Willcox, R. R.: The Ito skin test for chancroid in the adult and juvenile African. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 284 (1952).Google Scholar

IV. Biopsy

  1. Heyman, A., P. B. Beeson and W. H. Sheldon: Diagnosis of chancroid. The relative efficiency of biopsies, cultures, smears, autoinoculations and skin tests. J. Amer. med. Ass. 129, 935 (1945).Google Scholar
  2. McCarthy, L.: Histopathology of Skin Diseases, p. 186. London: Henry Kimpton 1931.Google Scholar
  3. Sheldon, W. H., and A. Heyman: Studies on chancroid. I. Observations on the histology with an evaluation of biopsy as a diagnostic procedure. Amer. J. Path. 22, 415 (1946).Google Scholar

V. Autoinoculations

  1. Heyman, A., P. B. Beeson and W. H. Sheldon: Diagnosis of chancroid. The relative efficiency of biopsies, cultures, smears, autoinoculations and skin tests. J. Amer. med. Ass. 129, 935 (1945).Google Scholar
  2. Stillians, A. W.: Syphilization. An episode in the evolution of syphilology. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 37, 272 (1938).Google Scholar
  3. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar

VI. Complement-fixation test

  1. Sanderson, E. S., R. B. Greenblatt and E. Baethke: The complement fixation test in chancroidal infection. J. Lab. clin. Med. 24, 185 (1938).Google Scholar

VII. Cross reactions

  1. Knott, L. W., L. H. T. Bernstein, H. Eagle, T. E. Billings, R. L. Zobel and E. G Clark: The differential diagnosis of lymphogranuloma venereum and chancroid by laboratory and skin tests. Amer. J. Syph. 27, 657 (1943).Google Scholar
  2. Strakosch, E. A., H. W. Kendell, R. M Craig and G. K. Schwemlein: Clinical and laboratory investigation of 370 cases of chan croid. J. invest. Derm. 6, 95 (1945).Google Scholar

E. Differential diagnosis

  1. Dienst, R. B., and S. W. Gilkerson: Evaluation of the Ducrey skin test for chancroid Amer. J. Syph. 31, 65 (1947).Google Scholar
  2. Heyman, A.: The clinical and laboratory differentiation between chancroid and lymphogranuloma venereum. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 279 (1946).Google Scholar
  3. Leibovitz, A.: An outbreak of pyogenic penile ulcers associated with a microaerophilic streptococcus resembling Hemophilus Ducreyi. Amer. J. Syph. 38, 203 (1954).Google Scholar
  4. Stokes, J. H, H. Beerman and N. R. Ingraham: Modern clinical syphilology, 3rd. edit., pp. 476,.516 and 520. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Company 1945.Google Scholar
  5. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar
  6. Wall, M. J., A. Heyman and P. B. Beeson: Studies on the complement fixation reaction in Ivmphogranuloma venereum. Amer. J. Syph. 31, 289 (1947).Google Scholar

F. Treatment : I.Prophylaxis

  1. Arthur, R. D., and H. Dermon: Sulphathiazole as a venereal disease prophylaxis. Amer. J. Syph. 27, 261 (1943).Google Scholar
  2. Bergsma, D.: Sulphathiazole prophylaxis for gonorrhoea and chancroid among soldiers in the Caribbean area. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 368 (1946).Google Scholar
  3. Combes, F. C., and O. Cañizares: The experimental prophylaxis of chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 28, 59 (1944).Google Scholar
  4. Greenblatt, R. B., E. S. Sanderson, H. S. Kupperman, Q. Hair and P. Fried: The experimental prophylaxis of chancroid disease. II. Amer. J. Syph. 28, 165 (1944).Google Scholar
  5. Greenblatt, R. B., E. S. Sanderson, F. Mortara and H. S. Kupperman: Experimental prophylaxis of chancroid disease. Amer. J. Syph. 27, 30 (1943).Google Scholar
  6. Green- Jald, E.: Chancroidal infection. Treatment and diagnosis. J. Amer. med. Ass. 121, 9 (1943).Google Scholar
  7. woses, M.: Sulphathiazole prophylaxis of gonorrhoea and chancroid. U. S. nav. med. Bull.40, 113 (1942).Google Scholar
  8. Keet, E. E.: The oral use of sulphathiazole in the prevention of gonorrhoea and chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 28, 315 (1944).Google Scholar
  9. Pereyra, A. J., and S. Landy: Experimental prophvlaxis and treatment of chancroidal infection. Inefficacy of penicillin administered intramuscularly. U. S. nav. med. Bull. 43, 189 (1944).Google Scholar
  10. Willcox, R. R.: Effectiveness of antichancroidal drugs tested by autoinoculation of bubo fluid. Amer. J. Syph. 34, 378 (1950).Google Scholar
  11. Willcox, R. R.: Anti-chancroidal drugs tested by the hetero-inoculation of bubo fluid from the treated donor. Brit. J. vener. Dis. 26, 131 (1950).Google Scholar
  12. Willcox, R. R.: Streptomycin in soft sore. Observations on clinical and experimental infections. Lancet 1950 I, 396.Google Scholar
  13. Zeve, H. S., and S. S. Schneierson: Sulfonamide ointment in routine prophylaxis of chancroid disease. U. S. nav. med. Bull. 43, 391 (1944).Google Scholar

II. Established infection : 1.Local treatment

  1. Rauschkolb, J. E.: Circumcision in treatment of chancroidal lesions of male genitalia. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 39, 319 (1939).Google Scholar
  2. Sullivan, M.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 482 (1940).Google Scholar

2.Antimony

  1. Rauschkolb, J. E.: Circumcision in treatment of chancroidal lesions of male genitalia. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 39, 319 (1939).Google Scholar

4.Specific vaccine

  1. Andersen, M.: Om vaccinebehandling af ulcus molle og bubo ingvinalis. Ugeskr. Laeg. 101, 1107 (1939).Google Scholar
  2. Batchelor, R. C. L., and R. Lees: Treatment of chancroid with sulphanilamide. Brit. med. J. 1938 I, 1100.Google Scholar
  3. Harrison, L. W.: The modern treatment of venereal diseases. Practitioner 131, 443 (1933).Google Scholar

5.Sulfonamides

  1. Batchelor, R. C. L., and R. Lees: Treatment of chancroid with sulphanilamide. Brit, med. J. 1938 1, 1000.Google Scholar
  2. Cañizares, O., and J. A. Cohen: Treatment of chancroid with sulfanilamide. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 42, 649 (1940).Google Scholar
  3. Cole, H. N.: The local use of sulfonamide compounds in dermatology. J. Amer. med. Ass. 123, 411 (1943).Google Scholar
  4. Combes, F. C., O. Cañizares and S. Landy: Treatment of chancroid with sulphathiazole. Amer. J. Syph. 27, 700 (1943).Google Scholar
  5. Culp, O. S.: Treatment of chancroid with sulfanilamide. Amer. J. Syph. 24, 622 (1940).Google Scholar
  6. Fields, R. J., and J. J. Weinstein: The use of sulfanilamide powder locally in the treatment of chancroid. Urol, cutan. Rev. 42, 880 (1938).Google Scholar
  7. Grupper, C.: Infection chancrelleuse et therapeutique sulfamidée a propos de vingt-quatre cas personnels. Rev. frang. Derm. Vénér. 15, 175 (1939).Google Scholar
  8. Harp, V. C.: Observations on chancroid therapy with and without sulphathiazole. Amer. J. Syph. 30, 361 (1946).Google Scholar
  9. Hutchinson, A.: Treatment of bubo with sulphanilamide. Lancet 19381, 1047.Google Scholar
  10. Kornblith, B. A., A. Jacoby and L. Chargin: Chancroid. Treatment with sulfathiazole and sulfanilamide. J. Amer. med. Ass. 117, 2150 (1941).Google Scholar
  11. Kornblith, B. A., A. Jacoby and M. Wishengrad: Treatment of chancroid with sulfanilamide. J. Amer. med. Ass. 111, 523 (1938).Google Scholar
  12. Marin, A.: An epidemic of chancroid. Canad. Med. Ass. J. 49, 120 (1943).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Noojin, R. O., J. L. Callaway and W. Schulze: Sulfadiazine and sulfathiazole therapy in lymphogranuloma venereum and chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 27, 601 (1943).Google Scholar
  14. Satulsky, E. M.: Management of chancroid in a tropical theater. J. Amer. med. Ass. 127, 259 (1945).Google Scholar
  15. Strakosch, E. A., H. W. Kendell, R. M. Craig and G. K. Schwemlein: Clinical and laboratory investigation of 370 cases of chancroid. J. invest. Derm. 6, 95 (1945).Google Scholar
  16. Trautman, J. A., and D. C. Emenhiser: Sulfanilamide in the treatment of chancroid in the male. Hosp. News U. S. Publ. Hlth Serv. 8, 1 (1942).Google Scholar
  17. Trautman, J. A., and D. C. Emenhiser: Abst. Yen. Dis. Inform. 23, 203 (1942).Google Scholar

6.Penicillin

  1. Day, L. A.: Chancroid of the cervix: Report of two cases. Proc. Mayo Clin. 20, 70 (1945).Google Scholar
  2. Lahiri, K. D.: Penicillin in chancroid. J. Indian med. Ass. 15, 406 (1946).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Mortara, F., R. R. Feiner and E. Levenkron: Activity of penicillin against Hemophilus ducreyi in vitro Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 56, 163 (1944).Google Scholar
  4. Norcross, B. M.: Treatment of early syphilis with penicillin. Med. Bull. N. African Theatre of Operations 2, 110 (1944).Google Scholar
  5. Quoted by H. L. Hirsh and S. R. Taggart, Treatment of chancroid with streptomycin. J. vener. Dis. Inform. 29, 47 (1948).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Pereyra, A. J.: Ion transfer of penicillin. U. S. nav. med. Bull. 48, 40 (1948).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Pereyra, A. J., and S. Landy: Experimental prophylaxis and treatment of chancroidal infection. U. S. nav. med. Bull. 43, 189 (1944).Google Scholar
  8. Singer, S., and W. E. Deacon: Effects of penicillin G in vitro on Hemophilus ducreyi. Publ. Hlth Rep. (Wash.) 71, 1112 (1956).Google Scholar
  9. Tung, T., and C. N. Frazier: The in vitro action of penicillin on Hemophilus ducreyi. Amer. J. Syph. 29, 629 (1945).Google Scholar

7.Streptomycin

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Hirsh, H. L., and S. R. Taggart: Treatment of chancroid with streptomycin. J. vener. Dis. Inform. 29, 47 (1948).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Mortara F., and M. T. Saito: Streptomycin in experimental chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 31, 20 (1947).Google Scholar
  4. Rollier and Maury: Le traitement de la chancrelle par la streptomycine. Ann. Derm Syph. (Paris) 10, 541 (1950).Google Scholar
  5. Taggart, S. R., H. L. Hirsh, F. D. Hendricks, G. R. Gable, M. A. Puzak and A. B. Greaves: The treatment of chancroid with streptomycin. Amer. J. Syph. 33, 180 (1949).Google Scholar
  6. Weber, W. D., J. H. Williams and T. R. Httffines: Streptomycin therapy in a case of sulfonamide-resistant Hemophilus Ducreyi (chancroid) infection. Amer. J. Syph. 33, 58 (1949).Google Scholar
  7. Willcox, R. R.: Effectiveness of antichancroidal drugs tested by heteroinoculation of bubo fluid from untreated donor. Arch. Derm. Syph. (Chicago) 62, 533 (1950).Google Scholar

8.Chloramphenicol

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Deacon, W. E., S. Olansky, D. C. Albritton and W. Kaplan: VDRL chancroid studies. IV. Experimental chancroid. Prophylaxis and treatment. Antibiot. Med. 2, 143 (1956).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Olansky, S., F. W. Harb, C. E. Wood and D. S. Rambo: Intramuscular Chloromycetin (chloramphenicol) in the treatment of venereal disease. Amer. J. Syph. 37, 253 (1953).Google Scholar
  4. Robinson, R. C. V., and H. E. C. Zheutlin: Unpublished work (1949), quoted by Robinson, R. C. V.: Newer antibiotics in the treatment of venereal diseases. Amer. J. Syph. 34, 273 (1950).Google Scholar
  5. Willcox, R. R.: Aureomycin and chloramphenicol in chancroid. Brit. med. J. 1951 I, 509.Google Scholar

9.Chlortetracycline

  1. Asin, J.: Chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 36, 483 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. Pararella J. A.: The treatment of chancroid infection. Amer. J. Syph. 38, 345 (1954).Google Scholar
  3. Zheutlin, H. E. C., and R. C. V. Robinson: Aureomycin in the treatment of chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 34, 71 (1950).Google Scholar

10.Oxytetracycline

  1. Gomila, F. R., and W. P. Gardiner: Intramuscular Oxytetracycline (Terramycin) in the treatment of chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum and granuloma inguinale. Antibiot. Med. 3, 312 (1956).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Mendell, H. E., D. L. Foxworthy and C. G. Wornas: Chemotherapy of chancroid. Amer. J. Syph. 38, 483 (1954).Google Scholar
  3. Niedelman, M. L., H. E. Pierce, L. D. Hoffstein and W. V. Matteucci: Terramycin in the treatment of chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum and granuloma inguinale. Amer. J. Syph. 35, 482 (1951).Google Scholar

11.Tetracycline

  1. Marmell, M., and A. Prigot: Tetracycline in the treatment of certain venereal diseases. Antibiot. and Chemother. 4, 1117 (1954).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1959

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ambrose J. King

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations