Published November 30, 2021 | Version 2
Journal article Open

Comparison of the Rose Bengal and ELISA Tests with the Standard Tube ‎Agglutination Method in the Diagnosis of Brucellosis

  • 1. Department of Medical Microbiology, Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.

Description

Abstract

Brucellosis, an infectious bacterial zoonotic disease caused by bacteria of the Brucella genus, can cause high morbidity and is rarely associated with mortality. In order to guide clinicians in the rapid and accurate diagnosis of brucellosis, it is of great importance to use easy-to-apply and highly sensitive and specific screening tests in microbiology laboratories. This study included 1,709 patients that presented to our hospital with various complaints (mainly joint complaints, fever, and fatigue) compatible with brucellosis and underwent the Rose Bengal test (RBT), Brucella ELISA IgM and IgG tests, standard tube agglutination (STA) test, and Coombs agglutination tests between January 2020 and December 2020. All the laboratory tests were performed in standard laboratory conditions in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The department to which the patients presented, their test results, regions of birth, age and gender data were reviewed retrospectively. The first three clinics to which the patients presented were rheumatology (27.8%), infectious diseases (18.4%), and internal medicine (11.1%). We followed two different paths when comparing the test results. In the first approach, we considered patients with at least one positive test result as seropositive and analyzed the results of the remaining tests in the same patients. In the second approach, we compared the results of the RBT and ELISA tests with the reference tests of STA and Coombs agglutination. Of a total of 3,365 tests evaluated for 1,709 patients, 7.43% (127/1,709) were seropositive according to at least one method. According to this initial approach, the sensitivities of all the serological tests ranged from 20.4% to 49.3%, and their specificities ranged from 93.8% to 100%. In the second approach, based on confirmatory tests, the sensitivities of the screening tests were 100%, 100% and 84.6% for RBT, ELISA IgG and ELISA IgM, respectively, while their specificities were 90.6%, 81% and 63.8%, respectively. These findings indicate that serological methods can be significantly misleading in the diagnosis of brucellosis if the test results are not combined. Although the number of seropositive cases was low, we obtained results consistent with the regional prevalence data when we distributed the patients according to their place of birth. In conclusion, since there is no gold standard test for the serological diagnosis of brucellosis, the test results should be combined based on the advantages and disadvantages of each test. It is important to evaluate the laboratory diagnosis together with the patient symptoms and complaints consistent with the disease and to consider epidemiological details in this process.

Özet

Brucella cinsindeki bakterilerin neden olduğu bulaşıcı bakteriyel bir zoonotik bir hastalık olan bruselloz yüksek morbidite ve nadiren de mortalite ile ilişkili bir hastalıktır. Hızlı ve doğru bruselloz teşhisinde klinisyenlere rehberlik etmek için, mikrobiyoloji laboratuvarlarında uygulaması kolay, duyarlılık ve özgüllüğü yüksek tarama testlerinin kullanılması büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmaya Ocak 2020 - Aralık 2020 tarihleri arasında bruselloz ile uyumlu çeşitli şikayetlerle (başlıca eklem şikayetleri, ateş, halsizlik) hastanemize başvuran ve Rose Bengal test (RBT), ELISA Brucella IgM ve IgG, standart tüp aglütinasyon (STA) ve Coombs aglütinasyon test istemi yapılan 1.709 hasta dahil edildi. Tüm laboratuvar testleri standart laboratuvar koşullarında üreticinin tavsiyelerine uygun olarak gerçekleştirildi. Her hasta için başvurulan birim, test sonuçları, doğum yeri, yaş ve cinsiyet verileri retrospektif olarak gözden geçirildi. Hastaların başvurduğu ilk üç klinik romatoloji (%27.8), enfeksiyon hastalıkları (%18.4) ve iç hastalıkları (%11.1) idi. Test sonuçları arasında karşılaştırma yaparken iki farklı yol izledik. Birinci yaklaşımda en az bir pozitif test sonucu olan hastaları seropozitif olarak kabul edip aynı hastalarda diğer testlerin sonuçlarını inceledik. İkinci seçenekte STA ve Coombs aglütinasyon testlerini baz alarak RBT ve ELISA test sonuçlarını bu testler ile karşılaştırdık. 1.709 hasta için toplam 3.365 test çalışılmıştı ve hastaların %7.43'ü (127/1.709) en az bir yöntemde seropozitif idi. Bu ilk yaklaşıma göre tüm serolojik testlerin duyarlılıkları %20.4 ile %49.3 arasında ve özgüllükleri %93.8 ile %100 arasında değişmekte idi. Doğrulama testlerinin baz alındığı ikinci yaklaşımda ise tarama testlerinin duyarlılıkları RBT, ELISA IgG, ELISA IgM için sırasıyla %100, %100 ve %84.6 iken, özgüllükleri sırasıyla %90.6, %81 ve %63.8 idi. Bu bulgular test sonuçlarının kombine edilmemesi durumunda serolojik yöntemlerin bruselloz tanısında önemli derecede yanıltıcı olacağına işaret etmektedir. Seropozitif olgu sayısı az olmakla beraber hastalar doğum yerlerine göre dağıtıldığında bölgesel prevalans verileri ile uyumlu sonuçlara ulaşıldı. Sonuç olarak bruselloz tanısında altın standart bir serolojik test bulunmadığı için her bir testin sahip olduğu avantaj ve dezavantajlar bilinerek test sonuçlarının kombine edilmesi ve hastalıkla uyumlu belirti ve şikayetler ile birlikte kronik yönü de olan bu hastalığın epidemiyolojik edinim yönünün de akılda tutulması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Notes

Bruselloz tanısında Rose Bengal ve ELISA testlerinin Standart Tüp ‎Aglütinasyon ‎Yöntemiyle Karşılaştırılması

Files

jmvi.2021.41.z.pdf

Files (517.3 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:54bb475ce48157a25aa4af16caaad32d
517.3 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • ‎1. Hans R, Yadav PK, Sharma PK, Boopathi M, ‎Thavaselvam D. Development and validation of ‎‎immunoassay for whole cell detection of Brucella ‎abortus and Brucella melitensis. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1): ‎‎‎8543. ‎
  • ‎2. Cloeckaert A, Zygmunt MS, Scholz HC, Vizcaino N, ‎Whatmore AM. Editorial: Pathogenomics of the ‎Genus ‎Brucella and Beyond. Front Microbiol 2021; 12: ‎‎700734. ‎
  • ‎3. Bruce D. Note on the discovery of a micro-organism ‎in Malta fever. Practitioner 1887; 39: 161-70.‎
  • ‎4. de Figueiredo P, Ficht TA, Rice-Ficht A, Rossetti CA, ‎Adams LG. Pathogenesis and immunobiology of ‎‎brucellosis: review of Brucella-host interactions. Am J ‎Pathol 2015; 185(6): 1505-17. ‎
  • ‎5. Khurana SK, Sehrawat A, Tiwari R, Prasad M, Gulati ‎B, Shabbir MZ, et al. Bovine brucellosis - a ‎‎comprehensive review. Vet Q 2021; 41(1): 61-88. ‎
  • ‎6. Hayoun MA, Muco E, Shorman M. Brucellosis. In: ‎StatPearls. 2021, StatPearls Publishing, Treasure ‎‎Island, Florida.‎
  • ‎7. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, ‎Switzerland. Brucellosis in humans and animals ‎‎(Corbel ‎MJ). World Health Organization 2006. ‎Available at: ‎‎https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/Brucellosis.pdf [Accessed January 21, 2021].‎
  • ‎8. Shakir R. Brucellosis. J Neurol Sci 2021; 420: ‎‎117280. ‎
  • ‎9. Tumwine G, Matovu E, Kabasa JD, Owiny DO, ‎Majalija S. Human brucellosis: sero-prevalence and ‎‎associated risk factors in agro-pastoral communities of ‎Kiboga District, Central Uganda. BMC Public ‎Health ‎‎2015; 15: 900. ‎
  • ‎10. Sun GQ, Li MT, Zhang J, Zhang W, Pei X, Jin Z. ‎Transmission dynamics of brucellosis: Mathematical ‎‎modelling and applications in China. Comput Struct ‎Biotechnol J 2020; 18: 3843-60. ‎
  • ‎11. Ögredici Ö, Erb S, Langer I, Pilo P, Kerner A, ‎Haack HG, et al. Brucellosis reactivation after 28 ‎years. ‎Emerg Infect Dis 2010; 16(12): 2021-2. ‎
  • ‎12. González-Espinoza G, Arce-Gorvel V, Mémet S, ‎Gorvel JP. Brucella: Reservoirs and Niches in Animals ‎‎and Humans. Pathogens 2021; 10(2): 186. ‎
  • ‎13. Kerget F, Kerget B, Çelik N, İba Yılmaz S. Specific ‎Tests and Inflammatory Biomarkers in the ‎Evaluation ‎of Brucellosis Disease. Mikrobiyol Bul 2021; ‎‎55(2):113-24. ‎
  • ‎14. Ulu-Kilic A, Metan G, Alp E. Clinical presentations ‎and diagnosis of brucellosis. Recent Pat Antiinfect ‎‎Drug Discov 2013; 8(1): 34-41.‎
  • ‎15. Pendela SV, Agrawal N, Mathew T, Vidyasagar S, ‎Kudaravalli P. An Uncommon Presentation of ‎Brucella ‎Endocarditis Masquerading as Neurobrucellosis J Clin ‎Diagn Res 2017; 11(2): OD10-OD11. ‎
  • ‎16. Du N, Wang F. Clinical characteristics and ‎outcome of Brucella endocarditis. Turk J Med Sci ‎‎2016; ‎‎46(6): 1729-33. ‎
  • ‎17. Yagupsky P, Morata P, Colmenero JD. Laboratory ‎Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis. Clin Microbiol ‎Rev ‎‎2019; 33(1): e00073-19. ‎
  • ‎18. Uysal B, Mumcu N, Yıldız O, Aygen B. Comparison ‎of the methods used in the diagnosis of ‎brucellosis. ‎Klimik Derg 2021; 34(3): 1-10. ‎
  • ‎19. Nasinyama G, Ssekawojwa E, Opuda J, Grimaud P, ‎Etter E, Bellinguez A. Brucella sero-prevalence ‎and ‎modifiable risk factors among predisposed cattle ‎keepers and consumers of un-pasteurized milk in ‎‎Mbarara and Kampala districts, Uganda. Afr Health Sci ‎‎2014; 14(4): 790-6. ‎
  • ‎20. Ayaşlioğlu E, Kiliç D, Kaygusuz S, Küçük S, Ceken ‎S, Erol O, et al. The detection of Brucella spp by ‎‎BACTEC 9050 blood culture system. Mikrobiyol Bul ‎‎2004; 38(4): 415-9. ‎
  • ‎21. Rizkalla JM, Alhreish K, Syed IY. Spinal ‎Brucellosis: A Case Report and Review of the ‎Literature. J ‎Orthop Case Rep 2021; 11(3): 1-5. ‎
  • ‎22. Dhason TM, Subramanian M, Mani A, Aurlene N. ‎Seroprevalence of Anti-Brucella Antibodies IgG ‎and ‎IgM in Acute Polyarthritis in a Tertiary Care Center in ‎Southern India. Journal of Clinical and ‎Diagnostic ‎Research 2019; 13(10): DC06-DC09. ‎
  • ‎23. 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(6): 1031-3. ‎
  • ‎24. Díaz R, Casanova A, Ariza J, Moriyón I. The Rose ‎Bengal Test in human brucellosis: a neglected test ‎for ‎the diagnosis of a neglected disease. PLoS Negl Trop ‎Dis 2011; 5(4): e950. ‎
  • ‎25. Sharma R, Chisnall C, Cooke RP. Evaluation of in-‎house and commercial immunoassays for the ‎sero-‎diagnosis of brucellosis in a non-endemic low ‎prevalence population. J Infect 2008; 56(2): 108-13. ‎
  • ‎26. Köse Ş, Serin Senger S, Akkoçlu G, Kuzucu L, Ulu ‎Y, Ersan G, et al. Clinical manifestations, ‎‎complications, and treatment of brucellosis: ‎evaluation of 72 cases. Turk J Med Sci 2014; 44(2): ‎‎220-3. ‎
  • ‎27. Bayhan Gİ, Karakuş Epçaçan Z, Ertuğrul Y, ‎Sarıhan MH, Ersarı SS, Makal G. Is the Level of ‎Knowledge ‎on Brucellosis Sufficient in the Highly ‎Endemic Region? Pediatr Inf 2019; 13(1): 8-13. ‎
  • ‎28. Justman N, Farahvar S, Ben-Shimol S. The ‎implications of Rose Bengal test seroconversion in the ‎‎diagnosis of brucellosis in children in an endemic ‎region. Infect Dis (Lond) 2021; 53(5): 340-7. ‎
  • ‎29. Traxler RM, Guerra MA, Morrow MG, Haupt T, ‎Morrison J, Saah JR, et al. Review of brucellosis ‎cases ‎from laboratory exposures in the United States in ‎‎2008 to 2011 and improved strategies for ‎disease ‎prevention. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51(9): 3132-6. ‎
  • ‎30. Kandemir Ö. Bruselloz. Turkiye Klinikleri J Inf Dis-‎Special Topics 2015; 8(2): 1-9.‎
  • ‎31. Akalan Kuyumcu Ç, Erol S, Adaleti R, Şenbayrak ‎S, Deniz S, Barkay O. Comparison of Coombs Gel ‎Test ‎with ELISA and Standard Tube Agglutination Tests ‎Used in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis. ‎Infect Dis ‎Clin Microbiol 2020; 2(1): 1-7. ‎
  • ‎32. Koçman EE, Erensoy MS, Taşbakan M, Çiçeklioğlu ‎M. Comparison of standard agglutination tests, ‎‎enzyme immunoassay, and Coombs gel test used in ‎laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis. Turk J ‎Med ‎Sci 2018; 48(1): 62-7. ‎
  • ‎33. Andriopoulos P, Kalogerakou A, Rebelou D, Gil AP, ‎Zyga S, Gennimata V, et al. Prevalence of ‎Brucella ‎antibodies on a previously acute brucellosis infected ‎population: sensitivity, specificity and ‎predictive ‎values of Rose Bengal and Wright standard tube ‎agglutination tests. Infection 2015; 43(3): ‎‎325-30. ‎
  • ‎34. Fadeel MA, Hoffmaster AR, Shi J, Pimentel G, ‎Stoddard RA. Comparison of four commercial IgM and ‎‎IgG ELISA kits fomr diagnosing brucellosis. J Med ‎Microbiol 2011; 60(Pt 12): 1767-73. ‎