Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:22:22.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rubella in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

E. Miller
E. Miller
Affiliation:
Immunization Division, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Laboratory Service, 61, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
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.

The first description of rubella in the UK was by an English physician, Dr William Maton, who reported an outbreak of an illness resembling a mild form of scarlatina in a boys' public school in 1815 [1]. Some years later, when observing the spread of a rash-associated illness in a large family, Maton described the characteristic clinical features of rubella, namely a mild prodromal illness followed by a generalized and often tingling rash lasting for a few days and associated with enlarged and tender glands in the occipital and postauricular regions. He also correctly identified the relatively long incubation period of rubella and noted the absence of fever and other signs of constitutional upset. Maton did not suggest an English name for this disease which had been previously described and called Rothëln by German physicians in the late 18th century. The term ‘rubella’ (Latin for ‘little red’) was first used in 1866 by another English physician, Dr Henry Veale, when describing an outbreak of Rothëln in a boys' school in India [2].

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 107 , Issue 1 , August 1991 , pp. 31 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

REFERENCES

1.Maton, WG. Some account of a rash liable to be mistaken for scarlatina. Med Transact Coll Physicians (Lond) 1815; 5: 149–65.Google Scholar
2.Veale, H. History of an epidemic of rotheln, with observations on its pathology. Edinburgh Med J 1866; 12: 404–14.Google Scholar
3.Gregg, NM. Congenital cataract following German measles in the mother. Trans Ophthalmol Soc Aust 1941; 3: 35–46.Google Scholar
4.Farrington, CP. Modelling forces of infection for measles, mumps and rubella. Statist Med 1990; 9: 953–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Morgan-Capner, P, Wright, J, Miller, CL, Miller, E. Surveillance of antibody to measles, mumps and rubella by age. Br Med J 1988; 297: 770–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Miller, CL, Miller, E, Sequeira, PJL, Cradock-Watson, JE, Longson, M, Wiseberg, EC. Effect of selective vaccination on rubella susceptibility and infection in pregnancy. Br Med J 1985; 291: 1398–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Miller, CL, Miller, E, Waight, PA. Rubella susceptibility and the continuing risk of infection in pregnancy. Br Med J 1987; 294: 1277–8.Google Scholar
8.Noah, ND, Fowles, SE. Immunity to rubella in women of childbearing age in the United Kingdom. Br Med J 1988; 297: 1301–4.Google Scholar
9.Miller, E, Waight, PA, Vurdien, JE, et al. Rubella surveillance to December 1990: A joint report from the PHLS and National Congenital Rubella Surveillance Programme. CDR 1991; 1: R33–36.Google Scholar
10.Handford, SG, Begg, NT. COVER (Cover of vaccine evaluated rapidly). CDR 1991; 1: R38.Google Scholar
11.Peckham, CS. Congenital rubella in the United Kingdom before 1970: The prevaccine era. Rev Infect Dis 1985; 7 (supp 1): S11–S21.Google Scholar
12.Marshall, WC, Sheppard, S, Stark, O, Milton, A, Smithells, RW. Rash in early pregnancy. Br Med J 1983; 287: 609.Google Scholar
13.Swan, C, Tostevin, AL, Moore, B, Mayo, H, Barham, Black GH. Congenital defects in infants following infectious diseases during pregnancy. Med J Austr 1943; 11: 201–10.Google Scholar
14.Manson, MM, Logan, WPD, Loy, RM. Rubella and other virus infections during pregnancy. Ministry of Health, Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects 1960; 101. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
15.Peckham, CS. Clinical and laboratory study of children exposed in utero to maternal rubella. Arch Dis Child 1972; 47: 571–7.Google Scholar
16.Miller, E, Cradock-Watson, JE, Pollock, TM. Consequences of confirmed maternal rubella at successive stages of pregnancy. Lancet 1982; i: 871–4.Google Scholar
17.Miller, E. Rubella infection in pregnancy. In Modern antenatal care of the fetus. Chamberlain, G., ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications 1990, 247–70.Google Scholar
18.Munro, ND, Sheppard, S, Smithells, RW, Holzel, H, Jones, G. Temporal relations between maternal rubella and congenital defects. Lancet 1987; ii: 201–4.Google Scholar
19.Enders, G, Nickerl-Packer, U, Miller, E, Cradock-Watson, JE. Outcome of confirmed peri-conceptional maternal rubella. Lancet 1988; i: 1445–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Peckham, CS. Clinical and serological assessment of children exposed in utero to confirmed maternal rubella. Br Med J 1974; 1: 259–61.Google Scholar
21.Cradock-Watson, JE. Laboratory diagnosis of rubella: past, present and future. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 107: 3–18.Google Scholar
22.Cradock-Watson, JE, Ridehalgh, MKS, Anderson, MJ, Pattison, JR. Outsome of asymptomatic infection with rubella virus in pregnancy. J Hyg 1981; 87: 147–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Morgan-Capner, P, Hodgson, J, Hambling, MH, et al. Detection of rubella-specific IgM in subclinical rubella reinfection in pregnancy. Lancet 1985; i: 244–6.Google Scholar
24.Miller, E. Rubella reinfection. Arch Dis Child 1990; 65: 820–1.Google Scholar
25.Best, JM, Banatvala, JE, Morgan-Capner, P, Miller, E. Fetal infection after maternal reinfection with rubella: criteria for defining reinfection. Br Med J 1989; 299: 773–5.Google Scholar
26.Morgan-Capner, P, Miller, E, Vurdien, JE, Ramsay, MEB. Outcome of pregnancy after confirmed maternal reinfection with rubella. CDR 1991; 1: R57–R59.Google Scholar