Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Clinical Intelligence

A case of congenital rubella syndrome and infection in South-East London in 2015: prevention, diagnosis, and the public health response

Elizabeth Marchant, Louise Bishop, Debbie Flaxman, Jenni Jagodzinski, Mahesh Nanjundappa, Prasanna Muniyappa and Rebecca Cordery
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (653): 635-636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X688321
Elizabeth Marchant
Public Health England, London.
Roles: Health protection specialist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louise Bishop
Public Health England, London.
Roles: Consultant in health protection
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Debbie Flaxman
University Hospital Lewisham, London.
Roles: Deputy director infection prevention and control
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jenni Jagodzinski
University Hospital Lewisham, London.
Roles: Matron for neonatal services
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mahesh Nanjundappa
University Hospital Lewisham, London.
Roles: Consultant neonatologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Prasanna Muniyappa
University Hospital Lewisham, London.
Roles: Consultant neonatologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Cordery
Public Health England, London.
Roles: Consultant in communicable disease control
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

Before the introduction of rubella immunisation in 1970, rubella was a common childhood infection.1 Since then, the incidence has declined, with just 269 and 365 cases (confirmed by oral fluid IgM antibody tests) in England in 2013 and 2014 respectively.2

Although usually a mild disease, rubella infection in pregnancy can cause fetal death and congenital defects known as congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).3,4 Congenital abnormalities may include deafness, cataracts, visual impairment, learning disabilities, and cardiac defects. Infection in the first trimester carries a high risk (up to 90%) of CRS in the infant.1,4

Cases of CRS have also fallen significantly: between 1971 and 1975 there were approximately 50 cases a year and 750 associated terminations.1,5 Cases are now rare, with only eight cases reported between 2002 and 2011 in the UK.6

This paper describes a case of rubella infection and CRS, and the lessons learnt around early detection and management in both primary and secondary care.

THE CASE/TIMELINE OF EVENTS

In March 2015, the South-East London Health Protection Team was informed of a case of rubella infection and suspected CRS in a 17-day-old infant. The mother of the infant had been born in East Africa and had travelled to the UK at around week 12 of pregnancy. Later investigations revealed that the mother had a 2-day history of a rash-type illness shortly before arrival in the UK. She did not seek medical attention for her rash, or raise this at later appointments with healthcare professionals. The mother registered with a GP practice in week 17 of her pregnancy; at 18 weeks antenatal care commenced and booking bloods were taken that showed immunity to rubella with IgG of 162 IU/ml. At that time no testing for rubella IgM was performed. Retrospective re-testing of this sample after the birth of the baby showed that the sample was both rubella IgM positive and with low rubella IgG avidity, confirming a recent primary rubella infection.

The mother had been referred for specialist care due to intrauterine growth restriction, thought to be due to placental insufficiency. Following a scan at 34 weeks, the NHS trust decided to deliver the baby by caesarean section because of failure to thrive. After delivery the infant was admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) because of prematurity. At birth the baby was noted to have bilateral cataracts and a cardiac murmur. An oral fluid swab and EDTA blood sample were sent to the national reference laboratory. Rubella RNA and IgM were detected in both samples, confirming the diagnosis of congenital rubella infection. The clinical symptoms also confirmed this as a case of CRS.

RESPONSE

An incident meeting was held on the same day. It included representation from the NHS trust (Infection Control, Microbiology, Neonatology, and Occupational Health) and Public Health England (National Infections Service and the local Health Protection Team). A risk assessment was performed and control measures were put in place.

RISK ASSESSMENT

The risk assessment considered patients, staff, and visitors in the delivery suite and NICU. During and following delivery all fetal bodily fluids and respiratory droplets were considered infectious. As a result, staff involved in the birth or care of the baby in NICU may have been exposed to rubella, although the risk of transmission was considered low because the trust has a policy of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination for all staff.

Other mothers and babies in the delivery suite did not have direct contact with birth products or the baby’s bodily fluids. All of the infants in the same nursery were nursed in incubators at the time and therefore none of the other babies, mothers, or visitors would have been exposed to the baby’s body fluids or respiratory droplets.

CONTROL MEASURES

Following diagnosis, standard infection control precautions including hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment were assessed as sufficient for staff caring for the baby. The baby was isolated in a side room.

A weekly oral fluid sample was taken for rubella RNA, IgG, and IgM to monitor duration of virus excretion as a marker of infectiousness. Most infants with CRS excrete the virus at birth, with 50–60% having stopped within the first 3 months. However, 10% excrete the virus for more than a year.7 The family were informed that the infectious period could extend beyond discharge, and were given infection control advice and training on weekly oral fluid samples. It was agreed that three consecutive negative samples were required to demonstrate that the infant was no longer infectious.

Ninety-six staff involved in the birth and care of the baby were informed, referred to Occupational Health (OH), and given information about what to do if they became unwell. OH required documentary evidence of immunity or two MMR immunisations. Until this was provided, staff were excluded from work in maternity and neonatal settings.

CONSIDERATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT

This was the third case of CRS in the UK in 2014 and 2015. The mother of this case is thought to have acquired her infection overseas. The following recommendations have been identified from this case:

  • clinicians are reminded to ask about a history of rash in pregnancy, referring to the viral rash in pregnancy guidance for appropriate testing and management.8 The importance of taking a good travel history is also pertinent, to identify women at risk of exposure to other emerging infections, for example, Zika virus;

  • clinicians should consider rubella as a possible cause of intrauterine growth restriction;

  • clinicians are reminded to consider CRS in infants with consistent congenital abnormalities. A previous positive maternal IgG rubella screen should be interpreted with caution and in context. Early identification of rubella enables a timely risk assessment, infection control measures, and advice to staff and the family to prevent transmission; and

  • a healthcare worker MMR vaccination policy protects staff and patients from infection, but needs to be implemented universally. Staff working in high-risk settings should be prioritised, and those employed by external organisations, such as agency staff and students, should also be included.

CONCLUSION

Following a review of evidence by the UK National Screening Committee in 2003 and again in 2012, it was decided that rubella susceptibility screening in pregnancy, in England, would cease on 1 April 2016.9 Rubella susceptibility in pregnancy no longer meets screening programme criteria, mainly as a result of high vaccination coverage with the MMR vaccine in childhood. This has resulted in rubella infection rates in the UK being low and infection in pregnancy is therefore very rare.

This case report is a reminder that rubella infection remains prevalent in many countries, particularly across Africa and Asia, and uptake of vaccinations in these countries is often poor. Clinicians are reminded to explore any history of a rash-like illness or contact with a rash illness in pregnancy, particularly in women who were born overseas. New arrivals in the UK registering with a GP, particularly women of child-bearing age, should be offered MMR vaccine, prior to pregnancy, if their immunisation status is unclear.

There is growing consensus that maternal Zika virus infection may result in congenital Zika syndrome (microcephaly and other central nervous system abnormalities), although the risk of birth defects appears to be low compared with the risk associated with rubella.10 The majority of people infected with Zika virus have no symptoms and so a detailed travel history is particularly important. Materials are available online to support clinicians in the risk assessment and management of pregnant women potentially exposed to the infection.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the family, the staff at Lewisham Hospital, and the PHE National Infection Service.

Notes

Patient consent

The patient consented to the publication of this article.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received July 18, 2016.
  • Revision requested August 10, 2016.
  • Accepted October 11, 2016.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2016

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Salisbury D,
    2. Ramsay M
    , eds (2013) Immunisation against infectious disease (‘The green book’), Rubella (Public Health England, London), pp 343–365, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rubella-the-green-book-chapter-28 (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Public Health England
    (2016) Rubella: notifications and confirmed cases by oral fluid testing in England, 2013–2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rubella-confirmed-cases (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
  3. 3.↵
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
    (2015) Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/rubella/Pages/Congenital-rubella-syndrome-(CRS).aspx (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
  4. 4.↵
    1. World Health Organization
    (2016) Rubella: fact sheet. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs367/en/ (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tookey P
    (2004) Eurosurveillance, Rubella in England, Scotland Wales. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=464 (accessed 26 Oct 2016). 9, 4.
  6. 6.↵
    1. NHS Choices
    (2015) Rubella. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Rubella/Pages/Introduction.aspx (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Banatvala J,
    2. Peckham C
    1. Banatvala JE
    (2007) in Rubella viruses, Clinical features: post-natally acquired rubella, eds Banatvala J, Peckham C (Elsevier, Amsterdam), pp 19–38.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Brown D,
    2. Brown K,
    3. Campbell H,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Guidance on viral rash in pregnancy (Health Protection Agency, London) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/viral-rash-in-pregnancy (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
  9. 9.↵
    1. Public Health England
    (2016) Rubella susceptibility screening in pregnancy to end in England. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rubella-susceptibility-screening-in-pregnancy-to-end-in-england (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
  10. 10.↵
    (2016) Zika Virus infection and pregnancy information for health care professionals, Interim RCOG/RCM/PHE/HPS clinical guidelines. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/news/zika-virus-rcog-v20-09082016.pdf (accessed 26 Oct 2016).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 66 (653)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 66, Issue 653
December 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A case of congenital rubella syndrome and infection in South-East London in 2015: prevention, diagnosis, and the public health response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A case of congenital rubella syndrome and infection in South-East London in 2015: prevention, diagnosis, and the public health response
Elizabeth Marchant, Louise Bishop, Debbie Flaxman, Jenni Jagodzinski, Mahesh Nanjundappa, Prasanna Muniyappa, Rebecca Cordery
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (653): 635-636. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X688321

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
A case of congenital rubella syndrome and infection in South-East London in 2015: prevention, diagnosis, and the public health response
Elizabeth Marchant, Louise Bishop, Debbie Flaxman, Jenni Jagodzinski, Mahesh Nanjundappa, Prasanna Muniyappa, Rebecca Cordery
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (653): 635-636. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X688321
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • THE CASE/TIMELINE OF EVENTS
    • RESPONSE
    • RISK ASSESSMENT
    • CONTROL MEASURES
    • CONSIDERATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • The atypical presentation of COVID-19 as gastrointestinal disease: key points for primary care
  • COVID-19 with abdominal symptoms and acute abdominal pain: a guide to identification for general practice
  • How to manage low testosterone level in men: a guide for primary care
Show more Clinical Intelligence

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242