Bruselloz Hastalarında Hematolojik İnflamasyon İndeks Skorlarının Kültür Pozitifliğini Öngörmedeki Değerleri

Öz

Amaç: Sistemik bir hastalık olan bruselloz, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde endemik olabilen yaygın bir zoonozdur. Altın standart tanı yöntemi olan kültür, maliyetli ve zaman alıcı olduğundan, daha hızlı ve pratik tanı yöntemlerine ihtiyaç vardır. Bu bağlamda, basit ve ucuz parametrelerin öngörü potansiyelini aydınlatmayı amaçladık.

Materyal ve metod: Bu çalışmada, tedavi öncesinde kan kültürü örneği alınan, bruselloz tanısı konmuş 156 hasta değerlendirildi. Hastalar, kan kültüründe Brucella spp. üremesi olan ve olmayan gruplar olarak sınıflandırıldı. Biyokimyasal parametreler, hematolojik parametreler ve hematolojik inflamasyon indeksleri gruplar arasında karşılaştırıldı.

Bulgular: Doksan iki hastada (%59) kan kültürleri pozitifti. Gruplar arasında hematolojik parametreler (lökosit, nötrofil, lenfosit, monosit, trombosit, hemoglobin) ve hematolojik inflamasyon indeksleri [NLR: Nötrofil/Lenfosit oranı, PLR: Trombosit/Lenfosit oranı, NPR: Nötrofil/Trombosit oranı, MLR: Monosit/Lenfosit oranı, NLPR: Nötrofil/(Lenfosit × Trombosit) oranı, SII: Nötrofil × Trombosit/Lenfosit oranı, SIRI: Nötrofil × Monosit/Lenfosit oranı, AISI: Nötrofil × Trombosit × Monosit/Lenfosit oranı] arasında anlamlı bir fark gözlenmemiştir. Biyokimyasal testler incelendiğinde, kültür pozitif grupta kültür negatif gruba göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksek alanin aminotransferaz, aspartat aminotransferaz ve C-reaktif protein düzeyleri mevcuttu.

Sonuç: Çalışmamızda, hematolojik parametrelerin ve hematolojik inflamasyon indekslerinin kültür pozitifliği için öngörücü potansiyelini belirleyemedik. Ancak, bu bulguyu, karıştırıcı faktörlerin dışlanabileceği, geniş hasta örneklemli, prospektif, çok merkezli çalışmalarla desteklemek, konuyu açıklığa kavuşturmak için gereklidir.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bruselloz
• Kültür pozitifliği
• Biyobelirteçler
• Hematolojik inflamasyon indeksleri

Comparison of Hematological Inflammatory Indices Between Culture-Positive and Culture-Negative Brucellosis Patients

Öz

Background: Brucellosis, a systemic disease, is a common zoonosis that may be endemic in developing countries. Because the gold-standard diagnostic method, culture, is costly and time-consuming, faster and more practical diagnostic procedures are needed. In this context, we aimed to elucidate the predictive potential of simple and inexpensive parameters.

Materials and Methods: This study included 156 patients diagnosed with brucellosis who had blood cultures obtained prior to treatment. Patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of Brucella spp. growth in blood cultures. Biochemical and hematological parameters, as well as hematological inflammatory indices, were compared between the groups. 

Results: Blood cultures were positive in 92 patients (59%). No significant differences were observed among groups in hematological parameters (leukocytes, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, platelets, hemoglobin) or hematological inflammatory indices (NLR: Neutrophil/Lymphocyte ratio, PLR: Platelet/Lymphocyte ratio, NPR: Neutrophil/ Platelet ratio, MLR: Monocyte/Lymphocyte ratio, NLPR: Neutrophil/ (Lymphocyte × Platelet) ratio, SII: Neutrophil × Platelet/Lymphocyte ratio, SIRI: Neutrophil × Monocyte/Lymphocyte ratio, AISI: Neutrophil × Platelet × Monocyte/Lymphocyte ratio) confirmed by ROC analysis. Biochemical analyses showed significantly higher alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and C-reactive protein in the culture-positive group compared with culture-negative group.

Conclusions: In our study, we were unable to determine the predictive capacity of hematological parameters or hematological inflammatory indices for culture positivity. However, supporting this finding with prospective, multicenter studies with larger sample sizes that exclude confounding factors is necessary to clarify the issue.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Brucellosis
• Culture positivity
• Biomarkers
• Hematological inflammatory indices

Kaynakça

1. 1. Doğanay M, Alp Meşe E. Bruselloz. In: Wilke Topçu A, Söyletir G, Doğanay M, editors. Enfeksiyon Hastalıkları ve Mikrobiyolojisi. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri; 2008:1:897-908.
2. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Brucellosis Reference Guide: Exposures, Testing and Prevention. CDC. Vol 1.; Updated February 2017.
3. 3. Şimşek Yavuz S, Özger S, Benli A, Ateş C, Aydın M, Aygun G, et al. The Turkish Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Society (KLİMİK) Evidence-Based Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Brucellosis, 2023. KLIMIK Dergisi. 2023;36(2):86-123.
4. 4. Di Bonaventura G, Angeletti S, Ianni A, Petitti T, Gherardi G. Microbiological Laboratory Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis: An Overview. Pathogens. 2021;10(12):1623.
5. 5. Qureshi KA, Parvez A, Fahmy NA, Abdel Hady BH, Kumar S, Ganguly A, et al. Brucellosis: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment a comprehensive review. Ann Med. 2023;55(2).
6. 6. Apa H, Devrim I, Memur Ş, Günay I, Gülfidan G, Celegen M, et al. Factors affecting Brucella spp. blood cultures positivity in children. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 2013;13(3):176-80.
7. 7. Gülten E, Üçer S, Kazancıoğlu S. The Role of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio and Red Cell Distribution Width as Inflammatory Markers in Brucellosis. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine. 2023;75(4):508-14.
8. 8. Kayipmaz AE, Findik M, Kavalci C, Akdur A, Moray G, Haberal M. Red Blood Cell Distribution Width Increases During Infection in Renal and Liver Graft Recipients. Exp Clin Transplant. 2017;15(1):61-4.

9. 9. Zwerdling A, Delpino MV, Pasquevich KA, Barrionuevo P, Cassataro J, García Samartino C, et al. Brucella abortus activates human neutrophils. Microbes Infect. 2009;11(6-7):689-97.
10. 10. Skendros P, Boura P. Immunity to brucellosis. Rev Sci Tech. 2013;32:137–47.
11. 11. Zahorec R. Ratio of neutrophil to lymphocyte counts—rapid and simple parameter of systemic inflammation and stress in critically ill. Bratisl lek listy. 2001;102(1):5–14.
12. 12. Qiangsheng F, Xiaoqin H, Tong L, Wenyun G, Yuejuan S. Brucella cultures characteristics, clinical characteristics, and infection biomarkers of human Brucellosis. J Infect Public Health. 2023;16(3):303-9.
13. 13. Koyuncu H, Oflu AT, Güngör A, Bükülmez A. Platelet mass index, systemic immune-inflammation index, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as practical markers in childhood brucellosis. Revista Paulista de Pediatria. 2025;43:e2024123.
14. 14. Sirin M C, Cicioglu Aridogan B, Sesli Cetin E, Sirin F B, Nurlu Temel E, Unal O. Predictive Value of High-sensitivity C-reactive Protein to Albumin Ratio and Monocyte to High-density Lipoprotein Ratio in Patients with Brucellosis. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2022;15(2).
15. 15. Demirpençe O, Sevim B, Yıldırım M, Ayan Nurlu N, Mert D, Evliyaoğlu O. Serum POX, TAS, TOS ve Seruloplazmin in Brucellosis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(6):1592-17.
16. 16. Olt S, Ergenç H, Açikgöz SB. Predictive contribution of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in diagnosis of brucellosis. Biomed Res Int. 2015:210502.
17. 17. Akya A, Bozorgomid A, Ghadiri K, Ahmadi M, Elahi A, Mozafari H, et al. Usefulness of Blood Parameters for Preliminary Diagnosis of Brucellosis. J Blood Med. 2020;11:107-13.
18. 18. Kurklu Bozkir F, Erdal H, Sonmez Yildirim S. Diagnostic role of inflammatory markers in patients with brucella. Med Science. 2025;14(1):21-4.
19. 19. Sen P, Demirdal T, Nemli SA. Predictive Value of Inflammation Markers in Brucellosis. Archives of Iranian medicine. 2019;22(11):640–5.
20. 20. Çelik M, Çiçek Y, Atalay E, Altındağ D, Akgül F, Ürkmez FY, et al. Predictive Significance of Laboratory Tests in Bacteremic Brucellosis. Iran J Public Health. 2024;53(4):799-808.
21. 21. Han X, Zhang R, Xu B, Zhang W, Wang F, Yuan B, et al. Blood culture positivity and its clinical determinants among hospitalized male patients with newly diagnosed, laboratory-confirmed brucellosis: a hospital-based retrospective study. Front Microbiol. 2026;17:1754087.