Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:31:14.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical and Bacteriological Aspects of Impetigo Contagiosa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

George I. Barrow
George I. Barrow
Affiliation:
From the Public Health Laboratory, Bradford
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.

1. The results of an investigation into the clinical, epidemiological and bacteriological features of impetigo contagiosa, with special reference to the type identification of staphylococci and streptococci, are reported and discussed.

2. Of 106 impetigo cases studied, Staphylococcus aureus was isolated alone from 86 lesions (81 %), Streptococcus pyogenes alone from 6 (5·6 %), and a mixed growth of Staph. aureus and haemolytic streptococci in 14 instances (13·2 %).

3. Of the 100 strains of Staph. aureus isolated from impetigo lesions, 63 were identical in phage type (‘type 71’), and a further 17 were closely related (‘weak 71’).

4. Only one representative of ‘type 71’, and 9 of ‘weak 71’, were obtained from 164 strains of Staph. aureus from 200 persons in three control groups.

5. Of 90 strains of Staph. aureus from impetigo lesions, 64 (71 %) were resistant to penicillin. Of these penicillin-resistant strains, 54 (84 %) were of ‘type 71’, or close variants.

6. Strep, pyogenes was probably causative in at least 6 of the 18 patients yielding this organism from lesions; it was presumed to be a secondary invader in the remainder.

7. It is doubtful if nasal carriage is of importance in the epidemiology of impetigo.

8. It is concluded that there is a specific ‘type’ of staphylococcus associated with this form of impetigo.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , December 1955 , pp. 495 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

References

Barber, M. & Whitehead, J. E. M. (1949). Bacteriophage types in penicillin-resistant staphylococcal infection. Brit. med. J. ii, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigger, J. W. & Hodgson, G. A. (1943). Impetigo contagiosa; its cause and treatment. Lancet, i, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigger, J. W. & Hodgson, G. A. (1944). Impetigo contagiosa treated with microcrystalline sulphathiazole. Lancet, ii, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadness-Graves, B., Williams, R., Harper, G. J. & Miles, A. A. (1943). Slide-test for coagulase-positive staphylococci. Lancet, i, 736.Google Scholar
Church, R. (1954). Neomycin in pyogenic skin diseases. Brit. med. J. i, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, M. T. & Wherry, W. (1906). The etiology of pemphigus contagiosus in the tropics. J. infect. Dis. 3, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, H. R. (1881). On the contagion of impetigo contagiosa. Lancet, i, 821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, R. (1941). Bacteriology of impetigo contagiosa. Lancet, ii. 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, R. (1953). The epidemiology of some skin infections. Brit. med. J. i, 56.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1940). Staphylococcic Impetigo contagiosa. Arch. Derm. Syph., Chicago, 20, 187.Google Scholar
Fox, W. T. (1864). On impetigo contagiosa or porrigo. Brit. med. J. i, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, F. (1934). The serological classification of Streptococcus pyogenes. J. Hyg., Camb., 34, 542.Google ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, B. C., Carruthers, H. L. & Gough, J. (1947). Sycosis barbae; serological types of Staphylococcus pyogenes in nose and skin, and results of penicillin treatment. Lancet, ii, 572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope Simpson, R. E. (1941). The Impetigococcus. Lancet, i, 683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancefield, R. C. (1933). A serological differentiation of human and other groups of haemolytic streptococci. J. exp. Med. 57, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancet (1943). (Leading Article), i, 559.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, F. (1922). Zur Impetigofrage. Arch. Derm. Syph., Wien, 138, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. L. (1935). Impetigo contagiosa, its epidemiology and control. J. Hyg., Camb., 35, 150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, M. T., Tomlinson, A. J. H. & Williams, R. E. O. (1955). Impetigo contagiosa: the association of certain types of Staphylococcus aureus and of Streptococcus pyogenes with superficial skin infections. J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 458.Google ScholarPubMed
Percival, G. H. (1929). System of Bacteriology, 2, 75 et seq. London: Med. Res. Council.Google Scholar
Report (1954). Serotypes of Streptococcus pyogenes. Their relative prevalence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 1952–53. Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 13, 171.Google Scholar
Roodyn, L. (1954). Staphylococcal infections in general practice. Brit. med. J. ii, 1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rountree, P. M. (1953). Bacteriophage typing of strains of staphylococci isolated in Australia. Lancet, i, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, H. L. & Fergusson, A. G. (1943). Impetigo: aetiology and treatment. Lancet, i, 547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, I. B. (1953). Skin affections of the school-child. Publ. Hlth, 67, 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomons, B. (1951). Aureomycin, its topical use in some skin diseases (A clinical study). Brit. med. J. ii, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, H. F., Wilson, A. T., & Lancefield, R. C. (1943). Typing Group A haemolytic streptococci by M precipitin reactions in capillary pipettes. J. exp. Med. 78, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulloch, L. G. (1954). Nasal carriage in Staphylococcal skin infections. Brit. med. J. ii, 912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, F. C. O. & Hall-Smith, S. P. (1952). Superficial Staphylococcal infection. Lancet, ii, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. & Rippon, J. E. (1952). Bacteriophage typing of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, R. E. O., Rippon, J. E. & Dowsett, L. M. (1953). Bacteriophage typing of strains of Staphylococcus aureus from various sources. Lancet, i, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar