Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thing

Introduction: In outbreak settings, more than one virus may be infecting the given population. In twin or triple outbreak of measles, German measles (rubella), and varicella in highly immunized hilly areas, maximal number of the case patients in all the hilly villages belonged to the older age group...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Surender Nikhil Gupta, Naveen Gupta, Shivani Gupta
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2015-01-01
Series:Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jfmpc.com/article.asp?issn=2249-4863;year=2015;volume=4;issue=4;spage=566;epage=569;aulast=Gupta
id doaj-d6261902847d4b5296937cc656c3c1af
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d6261902847d4b5296937cc656c3c1af2020-11-24T23:08:55ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Family Medicine and Primary Care2249-48632015-01-014456656910.4103/2249-4863.174290Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thingSurender Nikhil GuptaNaveen GuptaShivani GuptaIntroduction: In outbreak settings, more than one virus may be infecting the given population. In twin or triple outbreak of measles, German measles (rubella), and varicella in highly immunized hilly areas, maximal number of the case patients in all the hilly villages belonged to the older age group. It suggested an obvious shift to the higher age group, warranting second dose opportunity in such case scenario. The clinical presentations of viral diseases are too similar to differentiate. The aim is to clearly categorize the case patients of modified measles, rubella, and atypical measles in outbreak settings. Results: Four outbreaks are listed. In the first one, sixty case patients were identified from 1026 people in 5 villages. Of these, 41 were diagnosed by clinically, 8 were laboratory confirmed as measles and 11 were epidemiologically linked German measles case patients. Seventy percent of the cases were vaccinated for measles. In second case, we identified 29/35 measles and 6/35 were confirmed as epidemiologically linked unvaccinated chickenpox case patients. In third one, we identified 116 cases in eight villages (112/116 clinically and 04/116 laboratory confirmed). Majority of cases were immunized against measles, but only minor cases for rubella. In fourth case, we identified 505 case patients from mixed outbreaks of varicella, measles and rubella (30/505 clinically, 467/505 epidemiologically linked and 8/505 laboratory confirmed case patients from a study population of 3280). In all the four outbreaks, prima facie, the clinical presentations of both rubella and modified measles were difficult to differentiate. Discussion: On the basis of outbreak investigation and analytical inference, it has been observed that the symtomatology of modified measles and laboratory confirmed rubella case patients/epidemiologically linked cases are so similar placed that many a time, it becomes much difficult to line list the cases in one section of modified measles or rubella or atypical cases. Conclusion: Similarities of morphological symptoms between modified measles and rubella is the point of challenge and it causes debate between pediatrician and field epidemiologist to differentiate and classify them.http://www.jfmpc.com/article.asp?issn=2249-4863;year=2015;volume=4;issue=4;spage=566;epage=569;aulast=GuptaAtypical measlesKangraNorthern Himachalmodified measlesrubellatwin outbreaktriple infection
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Surender Nikhil Gupta
Naveen Gupta
Shivani Gupta
spellingShingle Surender Nikhil Gupta
Naveen Gupta
Shivani Gupta
Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thing
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
Atypical measles
Kangra
Northern Himachal
modified measles
rubella
twin outbreak
triple infection
author_facet Surender Nikhil Gupta
Naveen Gupta
Shivani Gupta
author_sort Surender Nikhil Gupta
title Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thing
title_short Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thing
title_full Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thing
title_fullStr Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thing
title_full_unstemmed Modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: One and same thing
title_sort modified measles versus rubella versus atypical measles: one and same thing
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
issn 2249-4863
publishDate 2015-01-01
description Introduction: In outbreak settings, more than one virus may be infecting the given population. In twin or triple outbreak of measles, German measles (rubella), and varicella in highly immunized hilly areas, maximal number of the case patients in all the hilly villages belonged to the older age group. It suggested an obvious shift to the higher age group, warranting second dose opportunity in such case scenario. The clinical presentations of viral diseases are too similar to differentiate. The aim is to clearly categorize the case patients of modified measles, rubella, and atypical measles in outbreak settings. Results: Four outbreaks are listed. In the first one, sixty case patients were identified from 1026 people in 5 villages. Of these, 41 were diagnosed by clinically, 8 were laboratory confirmed as measles and 11 were epidemiologically linked German measles case patients. Seventy percent of the cases were vaccinated for measles. In second case, we identified 29/35 measles and 6/35 were confirmed as epidemiologically linked unvaccinated chickenpox case patients. In third one, we identified 116 cases in eight villages (112/116 clinically and 04/116 laboratory confirmed). Majority of cases were immunized against measles, but only minor cases for rubella. In fourth case, we identified 505 case patients from mixed outbreaks of varicella, measles and rubella (30/505 clinically, 467/505 epidemiologically linked and 8/505 laboratory confirmed case patients from a study population of 3280). In all the four outbreaks, prima facie, the clinical presentations of both rubella and modified measles were difficult to differentiate. Discussion: On the basis of outbreak investigation and analytical inference, it has been observed that the symtomatology of modified measles and laboratory confirmed rubella case patients/epidemiologically linked cases are so similar placed that many a time, it becomes much difficult to line list the cases in one section of modified measles or rubella or atypical cases. Conclusion: Similarities of morphological symptoms between modified measles and rubella is the point of challenge and it causes debate between pediatrician and field epidemiologist to differentiate and classify them.
topic Atypical measles
Kangra
Northern Himachal
modified measles
rubella
twin outbreak
triple infection
url http://www.jfmpc.com/article.asp?issn=2249-4863;year=2015;volume=4;issue=4;spage=566;epage=569;aulast=Gupta
work_keys_str_mv AT surendernikhilgupta modifiedmeaslesversusrubellaversusatypicalmeaslesoneandsamething
AT naveengupta modifiedmeaslesversusrubellaversusatypicalmeaslesoneandsamething
AT shivanigupta modifiedmeaslesversusrubellaversusatypicalmeaslesoneandsamething
_version_ 1725612389381963776