A New Perspective to the Brucellosis from East of Turkey; Does the Infections Really Decrease Over the Years?

Abstract

Aim: Brucella infection is a zoonotic disease caused by gram-negative bacteria in the structure of coccobacillus. The most frequently isolated species in our region are B. abortus, transmitted from, cows and B. melitensis, transmitted from sheep. The microorganism infects humans by direct contact with animal tissues or blood, and often via unpasteurized animal products. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of brucellosis in our region, its distribution according to years, seasons, age, and sex, and to observe the progress of brucellosis cases by years. Materials and Methods: The Rose Bengal agglutination test was used for screening. The BrucellaCapt test was applied to patients who were positive for Brucella screening test or who had clinically suspected brucellosis. We considered patients with 1/160 and above titers as positive. Results: The total number of samples that came to the laboratory from 2016 to 2019‎ was 20. 330, from which ‎19.595 were Brucella-negative, while 735 were Brucella-positive. The number of Brucella strains grown in the blood culture was determined as 12, and the Public Health laboratory identified all strains as Brucella melitensis. The distribution of patients according to age, sex, season, and branches were examined by the years. Conclusion: In conclusion, the incidence of Brucella cases in our region is a known fact. While it was expected that the cases would tend to decrease in recent years, it has been observed that it has increased slightly due to reasons such as imported livestock, insufficient sanitation conditions, and lack of awareness of the farmers.

Keywords

• Brucella
• Prevalance
• Distrubution

References

1. 1. Elshamy M , Ahmed A. The effects of maternal brucellosis on pregnancy outcome. J Infect Dev Ctries 2008; 2: 230-4.
2. 2. Mesner O, Riesenberg K, Biliar N, et al. The many faces of human-to-human transmission of brucellosis: congenital ınfection and outbreak of nosocomial disease related to an unrecognized clinical case. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45: 135–40.
3. 3. Karcaaltincaba D, Sencan I, Kandemir O, Guvendag-Guven ES, Yalvac S. Does brucellosis in human pregnancy increase abortion risk? Presentation of two cases and review of literature. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010; 36: 418–23.
4. 4. Öcel S. (Brucella Infections: Evaluation and Management). Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi Eylül 2016; 2(3): 25-30.
5. 5. Dean AS, Crump L, Greter H ve diğ. Clinical manifestations of human brucellosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012; 6(12): 1929.
6. 6. Kuru AK, Metan G, Aygen B, Sümerkan B. Relaps ile seyreden bir nörobruselloz olgusu ve kısa literatür derlemesi. Erciyes Medical Journal 2009; 31(1): 066-069.
7. 7. Rubach MP, Halliday Jo EB, Cleaveland S, Crump JA. Brucellosis in low income and middle income countries. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2013; 26 (5): 404-412.
8. 8. Pappas G, Papadimitriou P, Akritidis N, et al. The new global map of human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2006; 6: 91.

9. 9. Turhanoğlu, N., & Vural, D. G. The comparison of Brucella gel agglutination test with other Brucella tests. Dicle Medical Journal/Dicle Tip Dergisi, 2015; 42:4.
10. 10. Alişkan H, Colakoğlu S, Turunç T, Demiroğlu YZ, Yazic AC, Arslan H. Evaluation of diagnostic value of Brucellacapt test in brucellosis. Mikrobiyol Bul 2007; 41(4): 591-5.
11. 11. Çiftçi C, Oztürk F, Oztekin A, Karaoğlan H, Saba R, Gültekin M, et al. Comparison of the serological tests used for the laboratory diagnosisof brucellosis. Mikrobiyol Bul 2005; 39(3): 291-9.
12. 12. http://www.klimik.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BRUSELLOZDA-TANI-%C5%9EUA-S%C3%9CMER29-MAYIS.pdf
13. 13. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/zoonotikvektorel-bruselloz/istatistik
14. 14. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/zoonotik-vektorel-hastaliklar-db/zoonotik-hastaliklar/9-Bruselloz/3-istatistik/Web_Bruselloz_haritasi.pdf
15. 15. Akkuș Y, Karatay G, Gülmez A. Knowledge and practices of people dealing with livestock regarding Brucellosis. Kafkas J Med Sci 2011; 1(1): 16-20.
16. 16. Kandemir Ö.Bruselloz. Turkiye Klinikleri J Inf Dis-Special Topics 2015;8(2).
17. 17. Babaoglu, U. T., Ogutucu, H., Demir, G., Sanli, D., Babaoglu, A. B., & Oymak, S. (2018). Prevalence of Brucella in raw milk: An example from Turkey. Nigerian journal of clinical practice, 21(7), 907-911.
18. 18. Bruselloz İstatistik verileri (Internet). Public Health Agency of Turkey, Department of Zoonotic and Vector Diseases, https://www.thsk.gov.tr/component/k2/353- istatiksel-veriler/zoonotik-ve-vektorelhastaliklar-daire-baskanligi-istatikselverileri.html. 2016.
19. 19. Dabanlıoğlu B. (Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in Erzincan province and its relationship with clinical findings). Department of Microbiology PhD Thesis. June 2005 Kayseri. 20. Gültepe, B., Parlak, M., ÇIKMAN, A., Bayram, Y., & Güdücüoğlu, H. Van ve yöresinde standart tüp aglütinasyon testi pozitifliğinin mevsimsel dağılımı. Van Tıp Dergisi 2013; 20(4), 198-202.