Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:08:00.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of the Virulence of the Diphtheria Bacilli Isolated from 113 Persons, and of 11 Species of Diphtheria-Like Organisms, Together with the Measures Taken to Check an Outbreak of Diphtheria at Cambridge, 1903

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. S. Graham-Smith
G. S. Graham-Smith
Affiliation:
From the Pathological Laboratory of the University of Cambridge
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. Diphtheria bacilli have been found in a considerable proportion of persons who have come into contact with cases of diphtheria, or with other infected persons.

2. Such persons have been shown to be a grave danger to the public health, especially when frequenting schools or institutions, and to constitute the usual channel by which the disease is spread.

3. Very satisfactory results have followed on the isolation of convalescents from the disease and of “infected contacts,” where two, or more, consecutive negative examinations have been required before release.

4. Carefully conducted investigations amongst healthy persons, who have not at a recent date been in contact with diphtheria cases or infected contacts, have shown that virulent diphtheria bacilli are very seldom (2 examples amongst 1511 persons) present in the mouths of the normal population. This fact renders the discovery and isolation of infected persons a practicable possibility, and offers a fair prospect of discovering and isolating the majority of them during any outbreak.

5. Of the 113 examples of the diphtheria bacillus tested for virulence during this outbreak, 87 were fully virulent, and 25 were completely devoid of virulence. One virulent bacillus for reasons explained did not kill the inoculated animal till the 12th day (p. 282). No partially attenuated bacilli have been found.

6. In the majority of persons in whom diphtheria bacilli were found, who had recently been in contact with cases of the disease, the bacilli were virulent.

7. Non-virulent bacilli were discovered in 1—2 out of every hundred persons examined, whether contacts or non-contacts. The proportion of persons infected with this organism is therefore the same amongst contacts and persons who have not recently been in contact with the disease.

8. The absence of polar bodies is no indication of a want of virulence in diphtheria bacilli, and their presence is no indication of the possession of virulence.

9. Hofmann's pseudo-diphtheria bacillus is a very common inhabitant of the mouths of poorer class children. It is less common amongst adults, even of the same class. The proportion of persons infected with this organism bears no relation to the proportion infected with the virulent diphtheria bacillus. Notified persons and infected contacts harboured this organism in the same proportions as the healthy school children with whom they had been associated.

Examples of the Hofmann's bacillus isolated from the first cultures obtained from diphtheria cases were totally non-virulent to guinea-pigs. There is no evidence that it is in any way pathogenic to man.

The distribution of this bacillus points to the conclusion that it is carried from mouth to mouth in the same ways as the diptheria bacillus, and therefore its widespread prevalence in schools attended by the poorer children is significant, as showing how widely spread and uncontrollable an outbreak of diphtheria may become, unless measures are early taken to deal with infected contacts.

10. Organisms morphologically resembling diphtheria bacilli are not infrequently found in the throats of healthy persons, and require careful examination by culture before they can be identified.

11. The xerosis bacillus is a common inhabitant of the normal conjunctival sac, and organisms closely resembling it are present in the eyes of some animals.

12. Virulent diptheria bacilli have undoubtedly been found in ear discharges, but diphtheria-like organisms appear to be extremely common in the ear discharges of scarlet fever patients, and in the ears of normal persons. Consequently no conclusions as to the frequency of the diptheria bacillus in the ears of scarlet fever patients can be made without the thorough examination of any organisms which may be discovered both by cultural, and virulence, tests.

13. Diphtheria-like organisms occur in the throats of healthy birds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1904 , pp. 258 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1904

References

Abbott, A. C. (1891), Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin, No. VIII. 08.Google Scholar
Abbott, A. C. (1902), Principles of Bacteriology, p. 400.Google Scholar
Andrews, F. W. (1900), Brit. Med. Journ., 11. 29, Pt II. p. 907.Google Scholar
Bergey, D. H. (1898), Comparative studies upon the pseudo-diphtheria, or Hofmann's bacillus, xerosis bacillus, and Löffler bacillus. Publications of Univ. of. Pennsylvania, New Series, No. 4.Google Scholar
Berry, and Washbourn, . (1900), Paper before Epidem. Soc. of London. Report, Brit. Med. Journ., 01., Pt I. p. 198.Google Scholar
Biggs, , Herman, , Scient. Bulletin, No. 1, Health Dept. City of New York. Cited by Cobbett and Phillips (1896).Google Scholar
Bissel, W. G. (1902), Bacterial pathology etc. of tonsillar inflammation. Med. News, 05.Google Scholar
Bolton, Meade (1896), Med. and Surg. Reporter. Cited by Goadby (1900).Google Scholar
Cautley, E. (1894), Further report on the etiology of “Influenza Cold.” Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1894—1895, p. 455.Google Scholar
Chatin, and Lesieur, (1900), Rev. d'hygiène, vol. XXII.Google Scholar
Baumgarten's Jahresber., vol. XVI. p. 196.Google Scholar
Cobbett, L. (IV. 1901), An outbreak of diphtheria checked etc. Journ. of Hygiene, vol. I. p. 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbett, L. (IV. 1901), Result of 950 bacteriological examinations etc. Journ. of Hygiene, vol. I. p. 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbett, L. (X. 1901), Observations on the recurrence of diphtheria. Journ. of Hygiene, vol. I. p. 485.Google Scholar
Cobbett, L. (XI. 1901), A note on Neisser's test for diphtheria bacilli. Lancet, 11., Pt II. p. 1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbett, L. (1903), Unpublished results quoted by Graham-Smith (1903), p. 249.Google Scholar
Cobbett, L., and Phillips, G. C. (1896), The pseudo-diphtheria bacillus. Journ. of Pathol. and Bacteriol., 12., vol. IV. p. 193.Google Scholar
Councilman, W. T. (1893), The pathology and diagnosis of diphtheria. Amer. Journ. of Med. Sci., 11., p. 540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Councilman, , Mallory, , and Pearce, (1901), Review, Philadelphia Med. Journ., May 4, p. 829.Google Scholar
Davis, L. D. (1898), Proc. of New York Patholog. Soc., p. 170.Google Scholar
Denny, F. P. (1900), Boston Med. and Surg. Journ., 11., vol. CXLIII. p.515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, J. (1897), On the xerosis bacillus. Journ. of Pathol. and Bacteriol., vol. IV. p. 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, D. (1903), Journ. of Pathol. and Bacteriol., 05, vol. VIII. p. 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, (1896), Berlin. klin. Wochenschr., No. 12.Google Scholar
Gallez, M. (1896), Belgian Acad. of Med. Summary, Lancet, 18. IV. 1896, p. 1082. Quoted by Gordon Sharp (1900).Google Scholar
Garratt, and Washbourn, (1899), Brit. Med. Journ., 04, Pt I.Google Scholar
Goadby, W. K. (1900), Paper before Epidemiolog. Soc. London. Lancet, 01., Pt I. p. 236.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. H. (1901), Report on Bacillus diphtheriae and micro-organisms liable to be confounded therewith. Thirty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1901—1902, p.418.Google Scholar
GordonSharp, J Sharp, J. (1900), Contagious catarrh, or roup, in fowls. Lancet, 07, Pt II. p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham-Smith, G. S. (1902), The measures taken to check etc. Journ. of Hygiene, 04, vol. II. p. 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham-Smith, G. S. (1903), The distribution of the diphtheria bacillus etc. Journ. of Hygiene, 04, vol. III. p. 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guérin, C. (1901), Diphtérie aviaire. Ann. de L'inst. Pasteur, vol. XV. p. 941.Google Scholar
Guérin, C. (1903), Sur la non-identité de la diphtérie humaine et de la diphtérie aviaire. Recueil de Méd. Vétérinaire, 01. 15, Tom. X. p.20.Google Scholar
Harrison, F. C. (1901), Report of Ontario Agr. College. Quoted by Harrison (1903).Google Scholar
Harrison, F. C. (1903), The supposed identity of human and avian diphtheria. Amer. Pub. Health Assoc., 12.Google Scholar
Hayward, J. A. (1895), Trans. of the Patholog. Soc. of London, vol. XLVI. p. 291.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R. T. (1899), On Neisser's diagnostic stain. Trans. Jenner Instit. of Prev. Med., 2nd series, p. 201.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R. T. (1901), Trans. of the Patholog. Soc. of London, vol. LII. p. 113.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R. T., and Knight, E. (1897), On the so-called pseudo-diphtheria bacillus. Trans. Brit. Inst. Prev. Med., 1st series, p. 13.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R. T., and Murray, H. M. (1901), A common means of diphtherial infection. Brit. Med. Journ., 06, Pt I. p. 1474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, H. W. (1898), Journ. of the Massachusetts Assoc. of Boards of Health, vol. VIII. 10.Google Scholar
Hill, H. W. (1902), Proc. Amer. Public Health Assoc.Google Scholar
Howard, W. T., and Ingersol, J. M. (1898), Amer. Journ. of Med. Sci., 05.Google Scholar
Jessop, W. H. H. (1895), Trans. Ophthalmolog. Soc. of United Kingdom, vol. XV. p.55.Google Scholar
Jessop, W. H. H. (1902), Paper before Ophthalmolog. Soc. of United Kingdom. Brit. Med. Journ., 05, Pt. I. p. 720.Google Scholar
Kober, (1899), Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, vol. XXXI.Google Scholar
Kuschbert, and Neisser, (1884), Deutsche med. Wochenschr.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. (1899), The bacteriology of the normal conjunctival sac. Trans. Jenner Instit. of Prev. Med., 2nd series, p. 56.Google Scholar
Lesieur, C. (1901), Review in Med. News, 09. 28th, 1901.Google Scholar
Lister, T. D. (1898), Paper before Royal Med. and Chirurg. Soc. Brit. Med. Journ., 10., Pt II. p. 1338.Google Scholar
Lorrain, Smith (1894), Brit. Med. Journ., vol. II.Google Scholar
Lubowski, (1901), Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, Bd. XXXV. p. 87.Google Scholar
Macfadyen, A., and Hewlett, R. T. (1900), A diphtheria-like organism found in pigeons. Trans. Patholog. Soc. of London, vol. LI. p. 13.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Assoc. of Boards of Health (1902), Report on diphtheria bacilli in well persons.Google Scholar
Massachusetts State Board of Health (1898), Thirtieth Annual Report.Google Scholar
Massachusetts State Board of Health (1900), Thirty-second Annual Report.Google Scholar
Minnesota State Board of Health (1899—1900), Eighteenth report.Google Scholar
Morse, . Cited by Welch (1894).Google Scholar
Müller, . Cited by Goadby (1900).Google Scholar
Novy, G. F. (1895), The etiology of diphtheria. Med. News, 07.Google Scholar
Ohlmacher, A. P. (1902), Journ. of Med. Research, vol. II. n.s., p. 128.Google Scholar
Pakes, W. C. C. (1900), Paper before Soc. Med. Officers of Health. Lancet, 02., Pt I. p. 311.Google Scholar
Park, W. H. Cited by Welch (1894).Google Scholar
Park, and Beebe, (1894). (New York) Med. Record, 09. 29.Google Scholar
Park, and Beebe, (1). Cited by Welch (1894).Google Scholar
Pearce, R. R. (1898), The general infections and complications of diphtheria and scarlet fever. Med. and Surg. Reports of the Boston City Hospital, 9th series.Google ScholarPubMed
Peck, H. (1901), Lancet, 02., Pt I. p. 480.Google Scholar
Richmond, and Salter, A. (1898), Guy's Hospital Reports, vol. LIII. p. 55.Google Scholar
Roux, and Yersin, (1890), Recherches sur la diphtérie. Ann. de L'inst. Pasteur, vol. IV. p. 385.Google Scholar
Ruediger, E. H. (1903), Trans. Chicago Patholog. Soc., 11. 9, vol. VI. No. 2, p. 45.Google Scholar
Salter, A. (1899), The pathogenicity of the pseudo-diptheria bacillus. Trans. Jenner Inst. Prev. Med., 2nd series, p. 113.Google Scholar
Shattock, S. G. (1898), Journ. of Pathol. and Bacteriol., vol. V.Google Scholar
Smith, , Theobald, (1896), Trans. Assoc. of Amer. Physicians.Google Scholar
Smith, Theobald, and Walker, E. L. (1896), Twenty-eight Ann. Report of the State Board of Health of Massachusetts, p. 649.Google Scholar
South Western Fever Hospital, London.Google Scholar
Guy's Hospital Gazette, vol. XV. p. 294.Google Scholar
Spirig, (1899), Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, vol. XXX.Google Scholar
Spronck, C. H. H. (1895), Ann. de L'inst. Pasteur, 10., vol. IX. p. 758.Google Scholar
Spronck, C. H. H. (1898), Ann. de L'inst. Pasteur, vol. XII. p. 701.Google Scholar
Stephenson, S. (1898, A), The diagnosis of diphtheria of the conjunctiva. Brit. Med. Journ., 06, Pt I. p. 1578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephenson, S. (1898, B), On epithelial xerosis of the conjunctiva. Trans. Ophthalmolog. Soc. of United Kingdom, vol. XVIII. p. 55.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. W. W., and Parfitt, C. D. (1897), Journ. of Pathol. and Bacteriol., vol. IV. p. 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, (1898), Journ. of Comp. Med. Quoted by Harrison (1903).Google Scholar
Turner, G. (1900), Brit. Med. Journ., 04 7, Pt I. p. 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uthoft, (1893), Berlin. klin. Wochenschr., No. 11.Google Scholar
Welch, W. H. (1894), Bacteriological investigations of diphtheria in the United States. Amer. Journ. of Med. Sci., 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesbrook, F. F., Wilson, L. B., and McDaniel, O. (1900), Varieties of the diptheria bacillus. Trans. Assoc. of Amer. Physicians.Google Scholar
White, C. P. (1895), Trans. Pathol. Soc. of London, vol. XLVI. p. 296.Google Scholar
Williams, A. (1898), Proc. of New York Patholog. Soc., p. 170.Google Scholar
Williams, Egerton (1901), Post-scarlatinal diphtheria and rhinorrhoea and otorrhoea. Brit. Med. Journ., 12. 21, vol. II. p. 1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, (1895), Zeitschr. f. Hygiene u. Infectionskr., Bd. XIX. Cited by Howard and Ingersol (1898).Google Scholar
Woodhead, G. S. (1895), Report on the Bacteriological diagnosis etc. of cases admitted to the Hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, 1895—6.Google Scholar
Wright (1). Cited by Welch (1894).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright (2). Cited by Pearce (1898).Google Scholar