Microbiological diagnosis of brucellosis

Laboratory Exposures from an Unsuspected Case of Human Infection with Brucella canis

We report a case of human infection with a Brucella canis isolate in an adult in Canada who was receiving a biologic immunomodulating medication. We detail subsequent investigations, which showed that 17 clinical microbiology staff had high-risk exposures to the isolate, 1 of whom had a positive result for B. canis.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis

The clinical presentation of brucellosis in humans is variable and unspecific, and thus, laboratory corroboration of the diagnosis is essential for the patient's proper treatment. The diagnosis of brucellar infections can be made by culture, serological tests, and nucleic acid amplification assays. Modern automated blood culture systems enable detection of acute cases of brucellosis within the routine 5- to 7-day incubation protocol employed in clinical microbiology laboratories, although a longer incubation and performance of blind subcultures may be needed for protracted cases. Serological tests, though they lack specificity and provide results that may be difficult to interpret in individuals repeatedly exposed to Brucella organisms, nevertheless remain a diagnostic cornerstone in resource-poor countries. Nucleic acid amplification assays combine exquisite sensitivity, specificity, and safety and enable rapid diagnosis of the disease. However, long-term persistence of positive molecular test results in patients that have apparently fully recovered is common and has unclear clinical significance and therapeutic implications. Therefore, as long as there are no sufficiently validated commercial tests or studies that demonstrate an adequate interlaboratory reproducibility of the different homemade PCR assays, cultures and serological methods will remain the primary tools for the diagnosis and posttherapeutic follow-up of human brucellosis.

Brucella Shunt Infection as a Rare Presentation of Neurobrucellosis

Brucellosis, as a systemic infection with potential to involving virtually all organ systems, is an endemic zoonosis in Iran. This is the history of a 17-year-old boy with a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt who presented with prolonged fever, constipation, and abdominal pain. Laboratory studies, including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood tests, revealed a VP shunt infection with Brucella spp. We treated the patient with rifampicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (cotrimoxazole), and ceftriaxone. Also, the shunt was temporarily replaced with an extraventricular drain until the CSF culture was sterile and a new permanent VP shunt could be inserted. We report this case to underline the diagnostic possibility of brucellosis in every case of protracted fever of unknown origin (FUO), irrespective of accompanying signs and symptoms.

Detection of Brucella melitensis by the BacT/Alert automated system and Brucella broth culture

This study was conducted to evaluate the ability of the BacT/Alert automated blood culture system to detect Brucella spp. in comparison with traditional Brucella broth culture. Overall, 100 (50 bone marrow and 50 blood samples) paired cultures were obtained, and 59 were positive by at least one method. The Brucella broth culture method detected all 59 positive cultures (100%), and the BacT/Alert system detected 30 (50.8%) (P < 0.05). The mean detection times for B. melitensis were 4.5 days in the BacT/Alert system and 5 days in Brucella broth culture (P > 0.05). There is no significant difference between the two methods with respect to growth time of the microorganism, but Brucella broth culture is more sensitive than the BacT/Alert system.

Reassessment of the routine anaerobic culture and incubation time in the BacT/Alert FAN blood culture bottles

A total of 9,130 blood cultures were collected from adult patients with suspected bloodstream infections. The recommended 20 mL sample of blood was divided equally between the aerobic and anaerobic FAN bottles and monitored in the BacT/Alert Microbial Detection System for a total of 5 days. There were 757 clinically significant positive culture pairs from 291 patients. Significant differences were found with greater recovery of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (p < 0.001), Acinetobacter spp. (p = 0.002), coagulase-negative staphylococci other than Staphylococcus epidermidis (p = 0.002), and Candida spp. (p < 0.001) from the aerobic bottle and greater recovery of anaerobic bacteria (p < 0.001) from the anaerobic bottle. Significantly more episodes of P. aeruginosa bacteremia (p < 0.003) and candidemia (p < 0.001) were detected by the aerobic FAN bottle and significantly more episodes of anaerobic bacteremia (p < 0.001) were detected by the anaerobic FAN bottle (Table 2). No other significant differences between systems in their detection of bacteremias were noted. Anaerobic bacteremias were encountered in diverse and often unpredictable clinical settings. All clinically significant episodes of bloodstream infection were detected within 4 days of incubation of their cultures. We conclude routine, rather than selective, use of the anaerobic FAN bottle in the blood culture set and a 4-day incubation of blood cultures in the BacT/Alert aerobic and anaerobic FAN bottles is an appropriate routine procedure.