Laboratory-acquired brucellosis: a Spanish national survey

The aim of this study was to define the clinical presentation of brucellosis in northern Australia and to assess the long-term impact of brucellosis on individual lives. A retrospective review was conducted to assess 32 patients with brucellosis caused by Brucella suis in Townsville, Australia during 1996–2009. All patients were Caucasian males with a mean age of 35 years. The greatest risk factor for brucellosis was feral pig hunting (94%, n = 30). There was one laboratory-acquired case. The most frequent clinical features included fever (94%, n = 30), fatigue (78%, n = 25) and arthralgia (78%, n = 25). The complication rate was 25% (n = 8). A delay in diagnosis of more than 14 days significantly increased the risk of the patient developing complications (95% confidence interval = 3.20–198.96, P = 0.002). The long-term impact of brucellosis was significant; 64% (16) of the patients reporting recurrent symptoms. This study highlights the need for further research on brucellosis caused by B. suis.

show abstract

“…12,13 There was one case of laboratory-acquired brucellosis in this study. Clinicians need to be aware that laboratory-acquired infections occur.…”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

Brucellosis in Northern Australia

Eales¹,

Norton²,

Ketheesan³

2010

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most frequently reported source of infection was processing of blood cultures (n ϭ 71), followed by work with known Brucella strains (n ϭ 62) and unknown (n ϭ 4); the source was not reported for 49 cases. A national survey of LAB reported that 60 of 75 cases were linked to major biosafety violations (62).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Literature Review of Laboratory-Acquired Brucellosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bBrucellosis is a bacterial zoonotic disease which has been associated with laboratory-acquired infections. No recent reviews have addressed the characteristics of laboratory-acquired brucellosis (LAB). English-language literature was reviewed to identify reports of laboratory exposures to Brucella spp. and LAB cases between 1982 and 2007. Evaluation of 28 case reports identified 167 potentially exposed laboratory workers, of whom 71 had LAB. Nine reports were identified that summarized an additional 186 cases of LAB. Only 18 (11%) exposures were due to laboratory accidents, 147 (88%) exposures were due to aerosolization of organisms during routine identification activities, and the circumstances of 2 (1%) exposures were unknown. Brucella melitensis was the causative agent in 80% (135/167) of the exposures. Workers with high-risk exposures were 9.3 times more likely to develop LAB than workers with low-risk exposures (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 38.6; P < 0.0001); they were also 0.009 times likelier to develop LAB if they took antimicrobial PEP than if they did not (95% CI, 0 to 0.042; P < 0.0001). The median incubation period in case and summary reports was 8 weeks (range 1 to 40 weeks). Antimicrobial PEP is effective in preventing LAB. The incubation period may be used to identify appropriate serological and symptom surveillance time frames for exposed laboratory workers.

show abstract

“…21 Brucella abortus is more widely distributed throughout the world than B. miletensis. 22 In our study 36% of patients were infected with B. abortus and 56% of patients were infected with both B. abortus and B. miletensis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%