Rötheln

BY W. A. HARDAWAY, M.D.

In the preparation of this article the author has consulted the following authorities: Emminghaus, in Gerhardt's Handb. der Kinderkrankh., Zweiter Band, 1877; Thomas, in Ziemssen's Cyclop. Pract. Med., vol. iii., Am. ed., 1875; Squire, in Quain's Dict. Med., 1883. References to current literature will be found in foot-notes to the text.

SYNONYMS.—Rubeola, Rubella, Roseola, Epidemic Roseola, German Measles, French Measles, Hybrid Measles, False Measles, Rubeola Morbillosæ et Scarlatinosæ.

DEFINITION.—Rötheln is an acute infectious disease, presenting an eruption of reddish macules upon the skin, accompanied by mild catarrhal symptoms, and usually producing but slight disturbance of the general system. It is self-protective, and occurs but once in the same individual. It has no relationship to measles or scarlatina.

HISTORY.—A rapid glance at the interesting historical evolution of rötheln to a specific position among the acute infectious diseases is all that our space will allow. Some writers have attempted to show that this affection was known to the Arabian physicians; but since it is only in comparatively recent times that the contagious epidemic exanthemata in general have been thoroughly differentiated, it is quite likely that the modern conception of it was not held by them nor by other medical men till many centuries later. Indeed, in our day, physicians are yet to be found, though the number is rapidly diminishing, who refuse to recognize in rötheln a distinctive specific malady. Certain German observers in the middle of the last century (De Bergen, 1752; Orlow, 1758) favored the idea of specificity, but these views were soon disputed. In the years following a number of other physicians announced their belief in the specific nature of rötheln, while, on the other hand, various noted authorities still insisted upon its connection with scarlet fever or measles. In 1815, Maton, an English physician, most unequivocally declared that he had observed cases of an eruptive disorder which resembled neither measles, scarlatina, nor roseola, and which was worthy of a new designation. In the second and third decades of this century Hildebrand, and afterward the celebrated Schönlein, taught that rötheln was a hybrid of measles and scarlatina, although at this time Wagner (1834) advocated the essential independence of rötheln. There is no doubt that under the name of rubeola sine catarrho Willan, Bateman, and later writers described what we now call rötheln, for they stated that this variety of measles was not self-protective. Space will not allow of a detailed mention of the various writers who, during the first half of this century, have contended for or against the autonomy of rötheln. It will be well to state, however, that Hebra, from the standpoint of the dermatologist, very properly regards the manifold roseolæ of Willan as in many instances merely symptomatic erythemata, or else as irregular forms of measles or scarlatina; but he also fails to recognize the distinctive features of rötheln. Even so recent a writer as Niemeyer declares that roseola arising from infection consists in a modification of measles or scarlet fever. It is only in the last twenty years that our present exact ideas of rötheln have obtained. For example, while Trousseau asserts that rubeola (rötheln) is a perfectly distinct nosological species, he speaks of the rash as appearing and disappearing alternately for some days, of its frequent recurrence in the same individual, etc. American physicians were almost entirely ignorant of rötheln till within the last ten years, when they were made acquainted with it through the medium of a careful paper on the subject from the pen of J. Lewis Smith of New York. Before this time, however, cases had been described by Homans, Sr., of Boston (1845), and in 1853 and 1871 by Cotting. Very few authorities now dispute the distinctive specific nature of rötheln; which statement is borne out by the fact that at the last meeting of the International Medical Congress, held at London in 1881, there were but two dissentients to this view in the section before which it was discussed.

Squire, Trans. Internat. Med. Congress, London, 1881.

Clinical Medicine, vol. ii.

Archives of Dermatology, Oct., 1874.

See especially Kassowitz's paper, "Die Wirkliche Stellung der sogenannten Rubeola," etc., Trans. Internat. Med. Cong., 1881.

ETIOLOGY.—The contagium of rötheln is unknown, but that the disease is contagious has been fully demonstrated by numerous observations of epidemics and sporadic cases. From my own experience I should judge that unprotected persons are not so susceptible of it as is known to be the case under similar conditions in measles; yet cases are recorded which would prove that the contagion may be conveyed through a third person and for some distance. It is probable that the vehicles of contagion are the same as in measles. At what period of its course the disease is most capable of transmission has not been satisfactorily determined. Squire is of the opinion, however, that the disease is contagious before the appearance of the rash, and may continue so for some days or for two or three weeks. Rötheln may be called a disease of childhood for the same reason that the other contagious exanthemata are—namely, that the majority of adults have already been attacked. From an examination of available statistics I am inclined to regard the ages between five and fifteen—the years of school attendance—as the period of life most susceptible of the influence of rötheln, although, of course, no time of life is entirely exempt. The non-susceptibility of sucklings, as in measles, holds true as a rule, although I am in a position to supply exceptions to this from my own experience, as well as from that of others. Sex seems to be without influence in determining liability to the disease.

In this regard it resembles scarlatina more than measles, for I have a number of times seen the disease introduced into families, where it would attack one or two of a number equally exposed. J. L. Smith regards it as feebly contagious, and quotes Chadbourne's experience to the same effect. Liveing declares that rötheln is more distinctly epidemic in Great Britain than either measles or scarlet fever, although probably less contagious.

The period of incubation is not very definitely settled, and, indeed, owing to the generally trivial character of the affection, evidence on this point is difficult to obtain. Taken as a whole, it is probably longer than is observed in measles. According to J. Lewis Smith, in the epidemic observed by him the incubation period varied from seven, or less than seven, to twenty-one days; Emminghaus places it at from two to three weeks; Thomas, from two and a half to three weeks; Squire, mostly a fortnight, the extreme being twenty-one days; Cheadle, from eleven to twelve days.

There is nowhere recorded a trustworthy instance of a second attack of rötheln, although from analogy such an event is to be expected. As in measles, true recurrences of rötheln—that is, the result of a fresh infection—are not to be confounded with relapses. I have never witnessed a relapse, but cases of such a nature have been recorded by other observers (Lindwurm, Emminghaus, Körtlin, Kingsley).

Rötheln is a disease sui generis, and is in no way related to either measles or scarlatina; that is to say, it is not an irregular form of either of these nor a hybrid of them, nor has it ever been observed to propagate anything but itself. That it is not connected with any of the symptomatic skin eruptions—the so-called roseolæ—is proved by its contagiousness and epidemic character. I quite agree with other observers in declaring that rötheln has very little clinical resemblance to scarlatina, and that, on the other hand, in the greatest number of cases the points of likeness are with measles. In the section on diagnosis the differential points between rötheln, measles, and scarlatina will be considered; therefore in this place it will only be necessary to call attention to certain general facts. Thus, aside from the marked divergence in clinical symptoms—incubation, invasion, fever, eruption, complications, and sequelæ—we are at once met by the positive fact that epidemics of rötheln, while always presenting identical features, prevail without regard to the existence of similar epidemics of measles and scarlatina—following or preceding them—and that attacks of rötheln offer no bar to the reception of their contagions, or vice versâ. Literature is so full of examples of this statement that it need scarcely be dwelt upon. By way of illustration, however, the accurate observations of J. Lewis Smith may be quoted in this connection. Of 48 cases recorded by him prior to May 1st in the New York epidemic of 1874, 19 had had measles. Rötheln in the N.Y. Foundling Hospital in 1873-74 followed an epidemic of measles. During the epidemic of 1880-81 the same fact was observed—namely, that a previous attack of measles, as well as scarlatina, afforded no protection from rötheln. I could multiply such examples from my own experience. A single interesting instance may be noted here. A physician asked the writer to examine his child, suffering, as he thought, from measles. A careful investigation revealed a typical rötheln. A number of weeks later an older child got measles, from which the rötheln patient acquired a characteristic attack of the same. In the following year both children were taken with scarlet fever.

The only escape for those who would deny the autonomy of rötheln is in the bold assertion that both measles and scarlatina more frequently recur in the same individual than universal experience and observation will allow; and this leaves them in the dilemma of determining to which group rötheln must be relegated. The hypothesis of the hybrid nature of rötheln cannot be accepted by the pathologist nor the clinician, if for no other reason than that no one has ever seen rötheln generate anything but rötheln, and in no case give rise to either scarlatina or measles.

SYMPTOMS AND COURSE.—As already stated, the probable average duration of the incubation period in rötheln is about fourteen days, varying, however, within the limits of from six to twenty-one days. In this respect rötheln resembles scarlatina more than measles, the period of latency in the latter observing considerable uniformity. No deviations from the general health are to be noted in the incubation stage.

In most cases prodromal symptoms are entirely absent, the presence of the eruption being the first thing to show the existence of rötheln in the system. On the other hand, in a certain proportion of cases there will be present for a half day, or even longer, the general symptoms of malaise, such as slight nausea, some sore throat, pain in the limbs, stiffness of the neck, etc. Vomiting is generally absent. J. L. Smith records one case of convulsions in the stage of invasion, and I have notes of a single case in which the prodromal stage was initiated by mild delirium and fever, the latter anticipating the eruption for two days and a half, and disappearing when the rash came out. As Thomas well observes, however, such cases are anomalous, and indicate either abnormal sensibility on the part of the patient or are due to a secondary rötheln.

Most observers (Emminghaus, Thomas, Smith, Squire) describe the rash as coming out in the order usual in measles—namely, first upon the face, scalp, and neck, then the trunk and arms, and finally the legs. Others (Liveing, Morris) have stated that the rash first appears upon the back and chest. In many cases in my own experience this has seemed to be true. It is quite probable that the situation of the exanthem in rötheln, as in measles and scarlatina, may present various irregularities; but I am inclined to believe that a careful investigation will in most instances show that the normal course of the eruption is as first stated. Now, a marked characteristic of the rash of rötheln is that, unlike that of measles, there is no period, however short, in which its maximum is simultaneous over the whole body; on the contrary, the eruption will have reached its full development upon the face, and will be almost or quite faded again, before the exanthem, for example, will have blossomed upon the trunk, and especially upon the lower extremities. The duration of the eruption upon individual parts of the body is probably from a few hours to half a day at most (Thomas). A consideration of these facts explains, according to Emminghaus, how different observers have described the eruption as having its seat upon this or that region of the body; in other words, it is probable that in a certain proportion of the cases in which the rash was supposed to have begun on the chest it had already run its course upon the face. The eruption usually continues altogether about four days, sometimes disappearing sooner, and sometimes being visible, especially as a fine mottling, for some days longer. So far as the individual lesions of the eruption are concerned, there is no question that they present, within a certain range, varying aspects; and this clinical fact has been taken advantage of by the opponents of the idea of specificity in order to make it appear that the disease is not sui generis, inasmuch as it lacks uniformity of expression. Such an argument wants force when we consider that in making up a given diagnosis we lay stress not upon special, but upon the ensemble of, symptoms. For example, no one would deny to measles an independent position because the eruption, as is well known, may assume this or that form (morbilli lævis, m. papulosi, etc.); on the contrary, we recognize a particular case or series of cases to be measles from a due appreciation of all the symptoms present. So it is to be expected that while the cutaneous lesions will present a certain similarity of feature, as they do, there will also exist minor differences in detail.

In the greatest number of cases in my own experience the exanthem is composed of ill-defined, roundish, punctate macules, without special grouping. These are usually discrete, but in certain situations they may coalesce. The color is of a pale rosy red, quite difficult to describe, but less purplish than in measles, and not so livid a red as in scarlatina. I have occasionally observed large irregular spots not unlike those of measles.

According to Emminghaus (op. cit., p. 345), the eruption generally forms roseolæ of pin-head, lentil, or small bean size. They are mostly round, sometimes oval, and bordered by well-defined or by blurred edges. The intervening skin is not always unchanged, for here and there we find upon it small dilated blood-vessels, and from the spots processes extend with a certain regularity to other spots in such a way as to give the skin a marbled appearance.

Thomas distinguishes three types of eruption—one with large spots, which is rare; one with medium-sized spots; and one with small spots. Emminghaus describes a discrete and a more confluent variety. I have observed one case where the maculæ on the back had undergone a vesicular transformation. Others have mentioned this occurrence. Itching of the skin is marked in some cases, and a fine desquamation is observed after the rash, but by no means invariably.

The mucous membranes are implicated to a slight degree in rötheln, but the amount of involvement varies considerably. In some cases that I have observed the catarrh of the mucous membranes has been barely appreciable. As a rule, however, the eyes are somewhat suffused, and there is slight lachrymation and photophobia. Sneezing may be noted, but there is little discharge from the nose. Sore throat is not uncommon, perhaps the most constant feature, and, according to Liveing, is apt to persist after the subsidence of the rash. The fauces are injected, and the tonsils are red and swollen, but with no evidence of ulceration. J. Lewis Smith and others state that the buccal mucous membrane shows a more or less diffuse patchy and spotted redness. The tongue may be, and usually is, covered by a white fur, through which protrude a few enlarged red papillæ. There may be slight cough. Loeri describes the mucous membranes of the pharynx, larynx, and trachea as presenting a spotted or uniform hyperæmia. There is no marked participation of the intestines in the catarrh. Some few writers have noted a transient albuminuria, but it is safe to say that such cases are entirely anomalous, if not, indeed, in some instances, examples of mistaken diagnosis.

Jahrb. f. Kinderk., xix. Bd., 1 Heft.

A very constant feature is the swelling of the lymphatic glands of the neck, especially those back of the sterno-mastoid; the swellings may come on before the rash appears. In all the cases that have fallen under my notice this symptom has not been absent in a single instance. Less constantly, and it would seem in proportion to the development of the rash, engorgement of the glands may be noted elsewhere.

There is but slight disturbance of the temperature in rötheln, and when it does occur it is usually limited to the first few hours of the eruption. This has been the rule in my observation, and certainly holds good for the majority of cases. In a minority, varying degrees of fever may be present; thus, the temperature may reach 102° F. or 103° F., and then rapidly sink by the second day of the disease, or, having fallen a degree, it may continue at this point till the subsidence of the rash, or, it is said, may retain its initial height till the end of the disease. During the following week Squire states that the temperature may be readily disturbed—either elevated by exertion or depressed by fatigue or chill. A relapse or recrudescence of the rash may be looked for at this time.

Cheadle (Trans. Internat. Med. Congress, London, 1881) has reported an epidemic of rötheln of a very severe type, all the symptoms of the disease as ordinarily recognized being very much exaggerated.

COMPLICATIONS AND SEQUELÆ.—In the vast majority of cases neither complications nor sequelæ have been observed in connection with rötheln. J. Lewis Smith has recorded instances of diphtheritic inflammation as a complication, which, however, as he justly remarks, may, when prevalent, attack any inflamed surface. Pneumonia and bronchitis have been occasionally reported as complicating or following rötheln. Liveing and Duckworth mention albuminuria, but, so far as I know, they are alone in this experience. I have known otorrhoea and ciliary blepharitis to occur as sequelæ. It would not be a matter of surprise that in weakly children various chronic ailments should be set up by rötheln, as by any other disturbance of the general health.

DIAGNOSIS.—There is no other disease which so much resembles rötheln as measles. Especially is this true of atypical cases occurring sporadically. In rötheln the whole course of the disease is much milder than in measles, the incubation is longer as a rule, and the fact of a previous attack of rubeola is of much importance, since we know that recurrences are very rare. In measles there is a prodromic period, having a characteristic temperature curve, and presenting pathognomonic catarrhal symptoms, which precedes the eruption for three or four days; in rötheln the appearance of the rash is often the first sign of the affection. The sore throat of rötheln resembles that seen in scarlatina more than the angina of measles, and the general catarrhal implication of the mucous membranes, so marked a feature of measles, is either absent in rötheln or exists to a very trivial extent. Measles is essentially a febrile disease, having a peculiar type of fever; rötheln may run its whole course without appreciable rise of temperature. As will be seen in the preceding pages, the development and progress of the exanthem of measles differs materially from that witnessed in rötheln. In measles the lesions are larger, more vivid, more angular and indented, more frequently provided with processes, and therefore more apt to assume the crescentic arrangement, than in rötheln. Finally, it must be urged that the tout ensemble of the case should be taken into consideration, and not some special feature of the skin eruption.

The incubation period of scarlet fever is much shorter than in rötheln, and all of the constitutional symptoms are, as a rule, infinitely graver. In scarlatina there is a febrile invasion stage of twenty-four hours; in rötheln, if fever is present at all, it is most generally simultaneous with the rash, and rapidly disappears, while in the former it persists for a number of days longer. Vomiting is common in scarlet fever, rare in rötheln. In scarlet fever the lymphatic glands are notably involved at the angles of the jaw, in rötheln at the sides and back of the neck. Sore throat is a feature common to both scarlet fever and rötheln, but it is very much less marked in the latter. Thomas says that in scarlatina only the posterior parts, the uvula, the arches of the palate and their vicinity are affected, while in rötheln the anterior parts are also affected, and both in much the same degree. In scarlet fever the rash, which mostly begins on the neck and chest, is made up of large patches formed of minute red spots on a bright-red hyperæmic base; in rötheln the eruption is composed of roundish pea-sized macules, with normal integument intervening. In cases of doubt—for example, when the rash of rötheln consists of very small spots which have become confluent—the further development and persistence of the scarlatinal efflorescence, the temperature, the pulse, the angina, and the character of the desquamation must be taken into consideration. The complications and sequelæ are very different in the two diseases.

Article "Scarlatina," op. cit.

The symptomatic eruptions of the skin which pass under the name of roseola bear no resemblance to rötheln. They usually occur as the result of some trivial derangement of the system or in the course of some primary affection. They are not contagious, the lymphatic glands and the mucous membranes are not involved, and the rash is quite different in character.

PROGNOSIS.—The prognosis of simple uncomplicated rötheln is invariably good. Complications arising in delicate children necessarily affect the prognosis, as would any other disturbance of the general health.

TREATMENT.—Simple cases of rötheln require no treatment, as the patients are rarely sick enough to be confined to bed. Graver forms of the disease must be met by such measures as are indicated by the symptoms present. The after-management must be conducted on general principles having reference to the previous and present condition of the person attacked.