Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:45:07.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of herpes zoster particularly in its relationship to chickenpox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. E. Seiler
H. E. Seiler
Affiliation:
From the Public Health Department, Edinburgh
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 results of a field survey of herpes zoster over a period of 18 months are described and the difficulties of such a survey mentioned.

A total of 246 patients with herpes zoster, only 16% of whom had attended hospital, is reported. It is calculated that the yearly incidence in the population was approximately 2 per 1000.

Full investigation and ‘follow up’ was undertaken in 184 cases. These are classified according to the site of the zoster—the dorsal, supra-orbital and cervical regions being affected in almost 90%, the dorsal region alone accounting for 53·3%.

Herpes generalisatus occurred in 7, or 38%, of the cases, recurrent herpes zoster in 6, or 3·3%, while there was one case of motor paralysis affecting lower limb.

The majority of patients were apparently well at the onset of the zoster, but 27 had some associated disease; 5 gave a history of trauma prior to the onset and 2 were related to pregnancy.

The seasonal and geographical distribution is given and, while the numbers are too small for statistical analysis, the disease in 1947 showed two peaks of higher incidence, the one in May and the other in October. Crowding or density of population did not appear to be important, and the disease occurred sporadically rather than in epidemic form.

There was a higher proportion of female cases, but when related to the population as a whole no sex differentiation was observed. Of the patients 60% were over 45 years of age.

There was no evidence that housing conditions or occupation were of aetiological significance or that the disease was more common among any particular section of the community.

Eleven patients had been associated with other cases of herpes zoster before developing the disease, while 3 gave a suggestive history of prior contact with chickenpox.

A condition indistinguishable from chickenpox occurred among the contacts of 10 patients, 12 individuals being affected, and there was one instance of concurrent herpes zoster and chickenpox. Other infections such as mumps, measles and rubella, while as common in association with the onset of herpes zoster, were not so frequently found as the chickenpox condition amongst contacts of the disease.

The results of the survey as regards the relationship of chickenpox and herpes zoster are discussed. It is considered that the evidence does not favour a significant association with chickenpox prior to the onset of herpes zoster, but that the facts are consistent with the view that a condition indistinguishable from chickenpox may follow contact with herpes zoster. It is suggested, however, that this may be a generalized manifestation of the virus of zoster rather than true chickenpox.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , November 1949 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

References

REFERENCES

Allen, F. M. B. (1944). Brit. Med. J. 2, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amies, C. R. (1934). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 15, 314.Google Scholar
Araki, S. (1937). Jap J. Derm. Urol. 41, 97. (Annotation Arch. Derm. Syph. Wien, 37, 1058, 1938.)Google Scholar
Beragreen, P. & Schüler, E. G. (1938). Derm. Wschr. 106, 216.Google Scholar
Brain, R. T. (1933). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 14, 67.Google Scholar
Bruusgaard, E. (1932). Brit. J. Derm. Syph. 44, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Bokay, J. (1909). Wien. klin. Wschr. 22, 1323.Google Scholar
Von Bokay, J. (1928). Jb. Kinderheilk. 119, 127.Google Scholar
Cowie, J. M. (1925). Brit. Med. J. 1, 642.Google Scholar
Crisp, G. H. (1940). Lancet. 2, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, S. (1946). Schweiz. med. Wschr. 76, 343.Google Scholar
‘Epidemics in Schools.’; (1938). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., no 227. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Farrant, J. L. & O'Connor, J. L. (1949). Nature, Lond., 163. 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaubersohn, S. A. & Villfand, R. A. (1929). Ann. Derm. Syph. 10, 609.Google Scholar
Hassko, A., Vamos, L. & Thoroczkay, M. (1938). Z. ImmunForsch. 93, 80.Google Scholar
Lauda, A. & Silberstern, E. (1925). Klin. Wschr. 4, 1871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipschutz, B. & Kundratitz, K. (1925). Wien. klin. Wschr. 38, 499.Google Scholar
Nagler, F. P. O. & Rake, G. (1948). J. Bact. 55, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netter, A. & Urbain, A. (1924). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 90, 461.Google Scholar
Rivers, T. M. & Eldridge, L. A. (1929). J. Exp. Med. 49, 899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. M. (1931). Glasg. Med. J. 116, 115.Google Scholar
Stocks, P. (1930). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 23, 1360.Google Scholar
Thomsen, O. (1934). Z. ImmunForsch. 82, 88.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. R. & Mitchener-Little, J. H. (1926). Brit. Med. J. 1, 697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar