Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:16:04.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double enteric infection (‘la fièvre typhoïde intriquée’). An account of an epidemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Batty Shaw  and
H. A. F. Mackay
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. A double enteric infection is defined as the simultaneous infection of an individual or group of individuals with two organisms of the enteric group. The literature of the previously recorded cases and epidemics, in which the diagnosis of double enteric infection has been established by cultural methods, is reviewed.

2. An account is given of a double enteric outbreak of seventy–six cases which occurred amongst British troops and police at Acre, Palestine, in 1948. The infection is thought to have been due to contamination of the water supply with sewage during the civil disturbances. The diagnosis was established bacteriologi–cally in seventy-four cases (93.3%);Salm. typhi was isolated in forty–three cases, Salm. paratyphi B in three, and both Salm. typhi and Salm. paratyphi B from twenty–eight cases. There were three fatal cases in the epidemic (mortality rate = 3·94%).

3. The morbidity rate from enteric fever among the infantry unit was 60%, and among the Palestine police, 17%. The possible reasons for this difference is discussed, and the conclusion drawn that it was probably due to the Palestine policemen being older men, with longer overseas service and more 'seasoned' to life in subtropical conditions.

4. Thirteen cases were treated with polymyxin B (15 mg. 4-hourly for 4-day periods); with this small dose no beneficial therapeutic effects were observed, and ten cases showed evidence of renal damage while under treatment.

5. The bacteriology, epidemiology and clinical aspects of double enteric infections are discussed. The diagnosis of a double enteric infection may be established with the greatest certainty by blood culture. Such infections are usually water-borne or milk-borne, and tend to occur when there has been a severe breach of hygiene, e.g. in the contamination of a water supply by sewage. The claim that the prognosis in instances of double enteric infection is worse than with single infections is not supported by the experiences at Acre where the three fatal cases occurred in cases infected with Salm. typhi alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 49 , Issue 2-3 , June 1951 , pp. 299 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

References

REFERENCES

Achard, C. (1916). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 79, 751.Google Scholar
Achard, C. (1929). Les Maladies Typhoides, p. 34. Paris.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, G. C., Brown, A. M. & Brownlee, G. (1947). Nature, Lond., 160, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. S. & Richards, H. G. H. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batty Shaw, A. (1951) (in the Press).Google Scholar
Batty Shaw, A. & Mackay, H. A. F. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 315.Google Scholar
Bernard, R. G. & Langlykke, A. F. (1947). J. Bact. 54, 24.Google Scholar
Bernard, L. & Paraf, J. (1915). Ann. Méd. 2, 443, 469.Google Scholar
Bourges, H. (1919). .Arch. Méd. Pharm. nav. 118, 222.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. S. K. (1943). Brit. med. J. 1, 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, G, & Bushby, S. R. M. (1948). Lancet, 1, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellani, A. (1907). Lancet, 1, 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellani, A. (1915). J. trop. Med. (Hyg.), 18, 37.Google Scholar
Chantemesse, A. & Grimberg, A. (1916). Pr. Med. 24, 265, 273.Google Scholar
Chevrel, F. (1913). Progr. Med., Paris, 41, S3, 439.Google Scholar
Conradi, H. (1904). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 30, 1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courmont, P. & Chattot (1916). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 79, 567.Google Scholar
Craigie, J. & Felix, A. (1947). Lancet, 1, 823.Google Scholar
Craigie, J. & Yen, C. H. (1938). Canad. publ. Hlth J. 29, 448, 484.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, R. (1950). Proc. R. Soc. Med. 43, 760.Google Scholar
Dawson, B. & Whittington, T. H. (1915 – 1916). Quart. J. Med. 9, 98.Google Scholar
Dubrowinski, S. B. (1929). Zbl. Bakt. 113, 225.Google Scholar
Étienne, G. (1915). Bull. Soc. Méd. Hôp. Paris, 39, S3, 456.Google Scholar
Étienne, G. (1918a). Ann. Méd. 5, 63.Google Scholar
Étienne, G. (1918b). Bull. Acad. Méd. Paris, 79, S3, 86.Google Scholar
Étienne, G. & Voirin (1917). Bull. Soc. Méd. Hôp. Paris, 41, S3, 973.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1924). J. Immunol. 9, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1929). J. Hyg., Camb., 28, 418.Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Callow, B. R. (1943). Brit. med. J. 2, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, R. H. (1912). J. R. Army Med. Cps, 19, 157.Google Scholar
Fornet, (1907). Arb. GesundhAmt., Berl., 25, 247.Google Scholar
Fortescue-Brickdale, J. M. (1915). Brit. med. J. 2, 938.Google Scholar
Gaehtgens, W. (1906). Zbl. Bakt. 40, 621.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. D. (1929). J. Hyg., Camb., 28, 376.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. D. (1937). J. Hyg., Camb., 37, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, L. P. (1950). Proc. R. Soc. Med. 43, 689.Google Scholar
Gautier, C. & Weissenbach, R. J. (1916). Bull. Soc. Med. Hop. Paris, 40, S3, 450.Google Scholar
Gerard, P. & Fenestre, (1917). Progr. med., Paris, 44, S3, 65.Google Scholar
Germani, A. (1927). Studium, 17, 104.Google Scholar
Grattani, H. W. & Harvey, D. (1911). J. R. Army Med. Cps,16, 9.Google Scholar
Hahn, M. & Reichenbach, H. (1928). Veroff. Medverw. 27, 361.Google Scholar
Hebert, P. & Bloch, M. (1917). Bull. Soc. med. Hop. Paris, 41 (S3), 937.Google Scholar
Heymer, A. & Wohlfeil, T. (1933). Klin. Wschr. 12i, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, E. S. (1932). J. Hyg., Camb., 32, 523.Google Scholar
Jeanselme, B. & Agasse-Laffond, E. (1915). Bull. Soc. med. Hop. Paris, 39, S3, 371.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. & Everkley, Jones H. (1945). Lancet, 2, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayser, H. (1904). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 30, 1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labbe, M. (1916). Ann. Med. 3, 13.Google Scholar
Leboeuf, A. & Braun, P. (1917). Ann. Inst. Pasterur, 31, 138.Google Scholar
Levy, J. (1936). Gaz. hebd. Sci. Méd. 57, 470, 484, 504, 522, 534, 552, 562, 584.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. & Upjohn, W. G. D. (1916). Brit. med. J. 2, 313.Google Scholar
Miner, J. T. (1922). J. infect. Dis. 31, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minet, J. (1917). Bull. Soc. Med. Hop. Paris, 41, S3, 861.Google Scholar
Montel, F. L. (1939). Marseille med. 76i, 678.Google Scholar
Nerlich, G. (1934). Arch. Hyg., Berl., 112, 1.Google Scholar
Neuhaus, (1926). Veroff. Med Verw. 23, 153.Google Scholar
Nieter, A. (1907). Munch. med. Wschr. 54, 1622.Google Scholar
Osler, sir W. & Mocrae, T. (1935). The Principles and Practice of Medicine, pp. 5, 25, 12th ed.New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Perry, H. M. (1918). Lancet, 1, 593.Google Scholar
Pirera, A. (1919). Gazz. med. napolet. 2, 372.Google Scholar
Rimpau, W. (1914). Munch., med. Wschr. 61, 354.Google Scholar
Rimpau, W. (1932). Munch. med. Wschr. 79, 2067.Google Scholar
Rist, E. (1916). Ann. Med. 3, 88.Google Scholar
Sacquepee, E. (1916). Bull. Soc. med. Hop. Paris, 40, S, 443.Google Scholar
Safford, A. H. (1913). J. R. Army Med. Cps, 20, 567.Google Scholar
Savage, W. G. (1905). J. Path. Bact. 10, 341.Google Scholar
Savage, W. G. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 393.Google Scholar
Schoenbach, E. B., Bryer, M. S. & Long, P. H. (1948). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 51, 267.Google Scholar
Seiderer, F. (1929). Z. MedBeamt. 42/51, 439.Google Scholar
Siredey, A. (1915). Bull. Soc. med. Hop. Paris, 39, S3, 371.Google Scholar
Stansly, P. G. (1949). Amer. J. Med. 7, 807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stansly, P. G., Sherpherd, R. G. & White, H. J. (1947). Johns Hopk. Hosp. Bull. 81, 43.Google Scholar
Swift, P. N. (1948). Lancet, 1, 133.Google Scholar
Thomas, (1907). Klin. Jb. 17, 207.Google Scholar
Torrens, J. A. (1922). Official History of the War. Medical Services, 1, p. 45. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Vincent, H. & Muratet, L. (1916). Fievres typhoides et paratyphoides. Paris. Translated into English by Rolleston, J. D., University of London Press (1917), pp. 133, 142.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. & Miles, A. A. (1946). Topley and Wilson's Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, 2, p. 1529, 3rded. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. D. (1949). Cordon and Search, p. 190. Aldershot: Gale and Polden.Google Scholar