Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T19:00:23.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Haemophilus ducreyi infections – time for reappraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

M. G. McEntegart ,
S. Hafiz  and
G. R. Kinghorn
M. G. McEntegart
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Sheffield, New Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX
S. Hafiz
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Sheffield, New Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX
G. R. Kinghorn
Affiliation:
Department of Genito-Urinary Medicine, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

As the literature on Haemophilus ducreyi and clinical chancroid is reviewed, it becomes obvious that many significant findings have been forgotten over the years. As a result, from the time of Ducrey's original description of the organism in 1890 until about 1977, both clinical and laboratory experts in the United Kingdom believed that H. ducreyi infections were rare, generally acquired abroad, and almost impossible to confirm in the routine laboratory! In consequence it was a common view that it was not worth looking for H. ducreyi until all other possible causes of genital ulceration had been excluded. Moreover, the search for such an infection stopped as soon as any other cause for the patient's lesions had been found.

A decision to ignore this ‘rule’ in Sheffield led to our looking for H. ducreyi in specimens from an unselected series of patients with genital ulceration including a number with herpes genitalis infections. The surprise finding of H. ducreyi in circumstances suggesting that it was a secondary invader made us re-examine the whole question of H. ducreyi infections and chancroid and wonder if the same organism can act as a primary pathogen and as a secondary invader. An account of the media and methods we used and of the characteristics of the organism is presented. In an attempt to find out more about the characteristic coherent colonies of H. ducreyi we studied them with the scanning electron microscope. It is clear that the whole subject of H. ducreyi infections has been neglected in the United Kingdom, but we believe that interest has now been aroused and progress will surely follow. Some areas for further investigation are suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , December 1982 , pp. 467 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

References

REFERENCES

Ajello, G. W., Deacon, W. E., Paul, L. & Walls, K. W. (1966). Nutritional studies of a virulent strain of Haemophilus ducreyi. Journal of Bacteriology 72, 802–808.Google Scholar
Barile, M. F., Blumberg, J. M., Kraul, C. W. & Yaguchi, R. (1962). Penile lesions among US Armed Forces personnel in Japan. Archives of Dermatology 86, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bezançon, F., Griffon, V. & Le Sourd, L. (1900). Recherche sur la culture du bacille de Ducrey. Presse Médicale 2, 385–390.Google Scholar
Beeson, P. B. (1946). Studies on chancroid. IV. The Ducrey bacillus growth requirements and inhibition by antibiotic agents. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 61, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borchardt, K. A. & Hoke, A. W. (1970). Simplified laboratory technique for diagnosis of chancroid. Archives of Dermatology 102, 188–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brams, J. (1924). Isolation of Ducrey bacillus from smegma of thirty men. Journal of the American Medical Association 82, 1166–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruck, C. (1915). Concerning the control of venereal diseases in the field and also a contribution to the pathogenesis of soft sore. Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift B1z 4, quoted by Sturm, A W. (1981) in a thesis entitled ‘Clinical and Bacteriological Aspects of Soft Sore – Rodopi’, Amsterdam 1981. p. 60.Google Scholar
Brunton, J. L., Maclean, A. R. & Albritton, W. L. (1979). Plasmid-mediated ampicillin resistance in Haemophilus ducreyi. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 15, 294–299.Google Scholar
Chapel, T., Brown, W. J., Jeffries, C. & Stewart, J. A. (1978). The microbiological flora of penile ulcerations. Journal of Infectious Diseases 137, 50–56.Google Scholar
Deacon, W. E., Albritton, D. C., Olansky, S. & Kaplan, W. (1956). V.D.R.L. Chancroid Studies. I. A simple procedure for the isolation and identification of Haemophilus ducreyi. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26, 399–406.Google Scholar
Deneer, H. G., Slaney, L., Maclean, I. W. & Albritton, W. L. (1982). Mobilization of non-conjugative antibiotic resistance plasmids in Haemophilus ducreyi. Journal of Bacteriology 149, 726–732.Google Scholar
Ducrey, A. (1890). Recherches expérimentales sur la nature intime du principle contagieux du chancre mou. Annales de Dermatologie et de Syphiligraphie 1, 56–57.Google Scholar
Greenwald, E. (1943). Chancroidal infection; treatment and diagnosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 121, 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafiz, S., Kinghorn, G. R. & McEntegart, M. G. (1981). Chancroid in Sheffield. British Journal of Venereal Diseases 57, 382–386.Google Scholar
Hammond, G. W., Lian, C. J., Wilt, J. C. & Ronald, A. R. (1978 a). Comparison of specimen collection and laboratory techniques for isolation of Haemophilus ducreyi. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 7, 39–43.Google Scholar
Hammond, G. W., Lian, C. H., Wilt, J. C. & Ronald, A. R. (1978 b). Antimicrobial susceptibility of Haemophilus ducreyi. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 13, 608–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handsfield, H. H., Totten, P. A., Fennel, C. L., Falkow, S. & Holmes, K. K. (1981). Molecular epidemiology of Haemophilus ducreyi infections. Annals of Internal Medicine 95, 315–318.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R. T. (1929). Chancroid and Bacillus ducreyi. In Mrc System of Bacteriology, vol. 2, pp. 411–419. London: HMSOGoogle Scholar
Heyman, A., Beeson, P. B. & Sheldon, W. H. (1945). Diagnosis of chancroid. Journal of the American Medical Association 129, 935–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Himmel, J. (1901). Des animaux vis-a-vis du bacille du chancre mou. Annales de l'Institut Pasteur 15, 928–940.Google Scholar
Kaplan, W., Deacon, W. E., Olansky, S. & Albritton, D. C. (1956). VDRL chancroid studies. II. Experimental chancroid in the rabbit. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26, 407–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellog, D. S.Peacock, W. L., Deacon, W., Brown, L. & Pirkle, C. I. (1963). N. gonorrhoeae. I. Virulence genetically linked to clonal variation. Journal of Bacteriology 85, 1273–1279.Google Scholar
Kerber, R. E., Rowe, C. E. & Gilbert, K. R. (1969). Treatment of chancroid. Archives of Dermatology 100, 604–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilian, M. (1976). A taxonomic study of the genus Haemophilus with the proposal of a new species Journal of General Microbiology 93, 9–62.Google Scholar
Khoo, R., Sng, E. H. & Goh, A. J. (1977). A study of sexually transmitted disease in 200 prostitutes in Singapore. Asian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1, 77–79.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, G. R., Hafiz, S. & McEntegart, M. G. (1982 a). Modified Haemin-containing medium for isolation of Haemophilus ducreyi. Lancet i, 393–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinghorn, G. R., Hafiz, S. & McEntegart, M. G. (1982 b). The pathogenic microbial flora of genital ulcers in Sheffield. British Journal of Venereal Diseases. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Kornblith, B. A., Jacoby, A. & Chargin, L. (1941). Chancroid, treatment with Sulfathiazole and Sulfanilamide. Journal of the American Medical Association 117, 2150–2153.Google Scholar
Lykke-Olesen, L., Larsen, L., Pedersen, T. G. & Gaarslev, K. (1979). Epidemic of chancroid in Greenland 1977–78. Lancet i, 654–5.Google Scholar
Maclean, I. W., Bowden, G. H. W. & Albritton, W. L. (1980). Tem type beta-lactamase production in Haemophilus ducreyi. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 17, 897–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nayyar, K. C., Stolz, E. & Michel, M. F. (1979). Rising incidence of chancroid in Rotterdam: epidemiological. clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic aspects. British Journal of Venereal Diseases 55, 439–441.Google ScholarPubMed
Saelhof, C. (1924). Observations on chancroidal infections. Journal of Infectious Diseases 35, 591–602.Google Scholar
Satulsky, E. M. (1945). Management of chancroid in a tropical theatre. Journal of the American Medical Association 127, 259–262.Google Scholar
Sottnek, F. O., Biddle, J. W., Kraus, S. J., Weaver, R. K. & Stewart, J. A. (1980). Isolation and identification of Haemophilus ducreyi in a clinical study. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 12, 170–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stein, R. (1908). Die Plattencultur der streptobacillen des ulcus molle. Zeniralblatt für Bacteriologie (Originale B) 46, 664–670.Google Scholar
Strakosch, E. A., Kendell, H. W., Craig, R. M. & Scheimelein, G. X. (1945). Clinical and laboratory investigation of 370 cases of chancroid. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 6, 95–107.Google Scholar
Tan, T., Rajan, V. S.Koe, S. L., Tan, N. J., Tan, B. H. & Goh, A. J. (1977). Chancroid: A study of 500 cases. Asian Journal of Infectious Diseases 1, 27–28.Google Scholar
Teague, O. & Deibert, O. (1920). The value of cultural method in the diagnosis of chancroid. Journal of Urology 4, 543–550.Google Scholar