Past exam of the medicine course of the University of Oxford / 1864 / Second examination / Pathology. medical, surgical / 3

Distinguish between what are termed Typhus and Typhoid Fever.

Typhus and typhoid fever are distinct infections, despite their overlapping fever, prostration and delirium. In the British historical comparison, typhus chiefly means epidemic louse-borne typhus, not every disease now called a typhus fever.

Classical typhus often begins relatively abruptly with severe headache, fever, prostration and a conspicuously ill mental state. Its eruption is commonly a more extensive dusky maculopapular rash on the anatomical trunk and limbs and may become petechial. Crowded conditions and infestation with body lice support the epidemiological distinction. Modern knowledge identifies Rickettsia prowazekii and transmission involving infected louse material. Injury to small-vessel endothelium helps explain the widespread illness; it is not chiefly a local ulcerating disease of the ileal lymphoid tissue.^[ref]

Typhoid fever more often develops insidiously, with persistent fever, headache and progressive weakness, together with abdominal discomfort, distension and either constipation or diarrhoea. Sparse, transient rose spots may occur on the anatomical trunk. Splenic enlargement and intestinal complications are important. The characteristic pathological process involves intestinal lymphoid tissue, especially Peyer's patches in the terminal ileum, with enlargement, necrosis and ulceration. Severe ulcers can bleed or perforate.^[ref]

Modern causation separates typhoid fever, due to Salmonella Typhi, from louse-borne typhus. Typhoid fever spreads through food or water contaminated by human excreta, including material from carriers; it is not acquired merely because an air space is crowded. A prolonged course, abdominal findings and intestinal haemorrhage favour it, whereas abrupt severe illness with a widespread dusky rash and louse exposure favour typhus.^[ref]

Neither the rash nor the bowel habit is invariable, and the old contrast between an approximately two-week typhus and a longer enteric illness is a tendency, not a diagnostic clock. An absent rose spot does not exclude typhoid fever, and an absent rash does not exclude typhus. Modern confirmation uses organism-appropriate investigations, including blood culture for enteric fever and appropriate serological or molecular testing for typhus. The important historical achievement is the separation of the syndromes; the later microbiological explanation should not be projected into every 1864 diagnostic account.