Low incidence and the prevalence of brucellosis among patients with pyrexia of unknown origin based on real-time polymerase chain reaction, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and standard agglutination test results in Puducherry, South India
Udhayasankar Ranganathan, M Maanasa Bhaskar, Harish Belgode Narasimha
Keywords :
Human brucellosis, pyrexia of unknown origin, real-time polymerase chain reaction
Citation Information :
Ranganathan U, Bhaskar MM, Narasimha HB. Low incidence and the prevalence of brucellosis among patients with pyrexia of unknown origin based on real-time polymerase chain reaction, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and standard agglutination test results in Puducherry, South India. 2019; 21 (2):100-103.
CONTEXT: Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease and an important differential to be considered in patients with pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO). The laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis has always been affected by various factors such as the slow growth of the organism and cross-reacting antibodies. Hence, a diagnostic test with high sensitivity and specificity is the key for the accurate and rapid diagnosis.
AIM: The study aimed to evaluate the role of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in the rapid diagnosis of human brucellosis from direct serum samples of patients with PUO.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study was conducted from October 2014 to September 2016 at a tertiary care hospital in Puducherry where 138 blood samples were obtained from the patients with PUO. Serum separated from each sample was tested for brucellosis using Cobas 480 Z real-time PCR system. Simultaneously, the samples were also subject to blood culture, standard agglutination test (SAT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (IgG and IgM) for brucellosis.
RESULTS: All the samples were found to be negative for brucellosis using real-time PCR. Blood culture also did not yield any growth of Brucella spp. Among the serological tests, all the samples were negative by SAT, whereas two were positive for IgM and four for IgG anti-Brucella antibodies using ELISA.
CONCLUSION: Brucellosis is not a common cause of PUO among patients attending this hospital since all the samples were negative by highly sensitive and specific tests such as real-time PCR and blood culture. This study highlights the limitations of serological tests such as ELISA in the accurate diagnosis of brucellosis.
Pappas G, Papadimitriou P, Akritidis N, Christou L, Tsianos EV. The new global map of human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2006;6:91-9.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization & World Organisation for Animal Health. Brucellosis in humans and animals. 2006. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43597. [Last accessed 2019 December 13].
Handa R, Singh S, Singh N, Wali JP. Brucellosis in north India: Results of a prospective study. J Commun Dis 1998;30:85-7.
Sen MR, Shukla BN, Goyal RK. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in and around Varanasi. J Commun Dis 2002;34:226-7.
Kadri SM, Rukhsana A, Laharwal MA, Tanvir M. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in Kashmir (India) among patients with pyrexia of unknown origin. J Indian Med Assoc 2000;98:170-1.
Mitka S, Anetakis C, Souliou E, Diza E, Kansouzidou A. Evaluation of different PCR assays for early detection of acute and relapsing brucellosis in humans in comparison with conventional methods. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:1211-8.
Queipo-Ortuño MI, Colmenero JD, Bravo MJ, García-Ordoñez MA, Morata P. Usefulness of a quantitative real-time PCR assay using serum samples to discriminate between inactive, serologically positive and active human brucellosis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14:1128-34.
Yagupsky P. Detection of Brucellae in blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:3437-42.
Memish ZA, Almuneef M, Mah MW, Qassem LA, Osoba AO. Comparison of the Brucella standard agglutination test with the ELISA IgG and IgM in patients with Brucella bacteremia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2002;44:129-32.
Welch RJ, Litwin CM. A comparison of Brucella IgG and IgM ELISA assays with agglutination methodology. J Clin Lab Anal 2010;24:160-2.
Mert A, Ozaras R, Tabak F, Bilir M, Yilmaz M, Kurt C, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of Brucella agglutination tests. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2003;46:241-3.
Araj GF, Kattar MM, Fattouh LG, Bajakian KO, Kobeissi SA. Evaluation of the PANBIO Brucella immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for diagnosis of human brucellosis. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005;12:1334-5.
Gómez MC, Nieto JA, Rosa C, Geijo P, Escribano MA, Muñoz A, et al. Evaluation of seven tests for diagnosis of human brucellosis in an area where the disease is endemic. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2008;15:1031-3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Public health consequences of a false-positive laboratory test result for Brucella-Florida, Georgia, and Michigan, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:603-5.
Romero C, Gamazo C, Pardo M, López-Goñi I. Specific detection of Brucella DNA by PCR. J Clin Microbiol 1995;33:615-7.
Al-Attas RA, Al-Khalifa M, Al-Qurashi AR, Badawy M, Al-Gualy N. Evaluation of PCR, culture and serology for the diagnosis of acute human brucellosis. Ann Saudi Med 2000;20:224-8.
Surucuoglu S, El S, Ural S, Gazi H, Kurutepe S, Taskiran P, et al. Evaluation of real-time PCR method for rapid diagnosis of brucellosis with different clinical manifestations. Pol J Microbiol 2009;58:15-9.
