Detection of Human Brucellosis by Brucellacapt and Rose Bengal Test in the Endemic Area

Abstract

Objective: Although brucellosis is the most common zoonosis in the world, it remains an infectious disease that has not received sufficient attention. This study’s aim was to retrospectively examine the results of the Rose Bengal and Brucellacapt tests in serum samples from patients with a prior diagnosis of brucellosis sent to our laboratory in our province, a highly endemic area for brucellosis. Materials and Methods: Between June 2019 and June 2021, 7827 serum samples sent to the public health laboratory with a provisional diagnosis of brucellosis were evaluated. The Rose Bengal and Brucellacapt test (Vircell, Spain) was used diagnose infection. Samples with antibody titer ≥1/160 were considered positive. Results: Of the 7827 samples included in the study, 354 (4.6%) of the total 7677 serum samples tested were RBT positive, 118 (3.1%) of the 3776 samples tested were BCAP positive, and 118 (3.3%) of the 3626 samples tested were both RBT and BCAP positive. It was found that seropositivity significantly higher in female patients (p<0.10). RBT and BCAP test positivity was most frequently observed in the 25-34 year age group. Considering brucellosis cases in terms of seasonal changes; 10.7% of cases were found in spring, 52.4% in summer, 20.9% in fall and 16% in winter. Conclusion: In suspected cases, RBT is still considered the ideal detection method because it is easy to use, inexpensive, sensitive, and provides rapid results. It was concluded that the BCAP test is suitable for diagnosis due to its ability to detect blocker and high titer antibodies.

Keywords

• Brucellacapt
• Brucellosis
• Endemic area
• Public health
• Rose bengal
• Seroprevalence

References

1. 1. Altun HU, Ozel Y, Yıldırım F. İkinci basamak bir hastanedeki bruselloz olgularının değerlendirilmesi. Yeni Tıp Derg. 2013; 30(3):187-90.
2. 2. Gorvel JP. “If you bring an alarm, we will destroy it,” said Brucella to the host cell. Virulence. 2014; 5(4):460-62.
3. 3. Şimşek H. Bruselloz. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Refik Saydam Hıfzıssıhha Merkez Başkanlığı ve Temel Sağlık Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Aylık Epidemiyoloji Raporu. 2004; 3:89-91.
4. 4. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/zoonotikvektorelbruselloz/istatistik. Erişim tarihi: 20.06.2022.
5. 5. Joung EJ. Brucella species. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 5th ed. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams; 2000.p.2386.
6. 6. Stephen S, Pradeep J, Sangeetha B, Jayaraman S. ‘Seroprevalence of Human Brucellosis in and Around Puducherry: Application of an Immunocapture Agglutination Technique (Brucellacapt). J Pure Appl Microbiol. 2019; 13(1):313-17.
7. 7. Duman Y, Tekerekoğlu MS, Batı NS, Otlu B. İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesinde Bruselloz Seroprevalansı: Rose Bengal, Wright, Coombs Aglütinasyon test sonuçları. Med-Science. 2013; 2:679-88.
8. 8. Dahouk S, Tomaso H, Nöckler K, Neubauer H, Frangoulidis D. Laboratory-based diagnosis of brucellosis-a review of the literature. Part II: serological tests for brucellosis. Clin Lab. 2003; 49(11-12):577-89.

9. 9. Casao MA, Navarro E, Solera J. Evaluation of Brucellacapt for the diagnosis of human brucellosis. J Infect. 2004;49:102–108.
10. 10. Saçar S, Hırçın Cenger D, Toprak S, Demir M, Turgut H. Otuz bruselloz olgusunun klinik değerlendirilmesi. İnfeksiyon Derg. 2008; 22:11-4.
11. 11. Çetinkaya Z. Francisella ve Brucella. In: Başustaoğlu A, Kubar A, Yıldıran ŞT, Tanyüksel M, editors. Klinik Mikrobiyoloji. 9. Baskı. Ankara: Atlas Kitapçılık, 2009. p. 815-34.
12. 12. Çiftçi C, Öztürk F, Öztekin A, et al. Comparison of the serological tests used for the laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2005; 39(3):291-99.
13. 13. Güzelant A, Kurtoğlu MG, Kaya M, Keşli R, Terzi Y, Baysal B. Brusellozis’in tanısında brucellacapt’in diğer serolojik testler ile karşılaştırılması. Selçuk Tıp Derg. 2009; 25(3):125-31.
14. 14. General Directorate of Public Health, Department of Zoonotic and Vectorial Diseases. Brucellosis Statistics Data. Ankara: T. C. Ministry of Health, 2017. Available from: URL: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/zoonotikvektorel-bruselloz/istatistik. Accessed October 10, 2022.
15. 15. Gómez MC, Nieto JA, Rosa C, et al. Evaluation of Seven Tests for Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis in an Area Where the Disease Is Endemic. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008; 15:1031-33.
16. 16. Hajia M, Fallah F, Angoti G, et al. Comparison of Methods for Diagnosing Brucellosis. Lab Medicine. 2013; 44:29-33.
17. 17. Ulu Kiliç A, Metan G, Alp E. Clinical presentations and diagnosis of brucellosis. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2013; 8:34-41.
18. 18. Demirdal T, Demirtürk N. Afyonkarahisar ilinde süt ve süt ürünleri üretiminin yoğun olduğu bölgelerde bruselloz seroprevalansı. Genel Tıp Derg. 2007; 17:43-46.
19. 19. Gündüz T, Akgül S, Özçolpan G, Tosun S, Limoncu ME. Prevalence of Brucellosis in Manisa: A retrospective study including 2008-2012. Anatol J Clin Investig. 2013; 7:101-103.
20. 20. Sözen H, Gönen İ. Riskli bölgelerde bruselloz için serolojik tarama yapılmalı mı? SDÜ Sağlık Bilim Enst Derg. 2012; 3:14-17.
21. 21. Demir T, Orhan B. Kırşehir bölgesinde bruselloz seroprevalansı ve tanıda serolojik ve biyokimyasal testlerin yeri. Selçuk Tıp Derg. 2012; 28:173-77.
22. 22. Köksal MO, Durmuş MA, Beka H, Ağaçfidan A. Bir üniversite hastanesine başvuran hastalarda Brucella seroprevalansı ve risk faktörlerinin araştırılması. ANKEM Derg. 2020; 34(2):65-70.
23. 23. Gündem NS. Kalem F. Bruselloz şüpheli olgularda Rose Bengal, Standart Tüp Aglütinasyon ve Brucellacapt sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi. Genel Tıp Derg. 2015; 25(2):46-51.
24. 24. Kaya M, Kurtoglu GM, Güzelant A, et al. Brucella Jel Aglütinasyon Testinin Brucella Tanısında Kullanılan Diğer Serolojik Testleri ile Karşılaştırılması. Selcuk Med J. 2018; 34(1):1-5.
25. 25. Karamese M, Acar O. A comparison of a new diagnostic test of the human Brucellosis, the Brucella Coombs Gel Test, with other methods. Acta Med Alanya. 2020; 4(1):56-60