Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2000, p. 2005-2006, Vol. 38, No. 5
Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Sezione
di Microbiologia Sperimentale e Clinica,1
and Istituto di Malattie Infettive e
Parassitarie,2 Università di Sassari,
07100 Sassari, Italy
Received 13 December 1999/Returned for modification 27 January
2000/Accepted 29 February 2000
We report an outbreak of laboratory-acquired Brucella
abortus infection originating in the accidental breakage of a
centrifuge tube. A total of 12 laboratory workers were infected (attack
rate of 31%), with an incubation time ranging from 6 weeks to 5 months. Antibody titers were evaluated weekly in all personnel exposed, allowing the diagnosis of the infection in most cases before the onset
of clinical symptoms, so that specific therapy could be administrated.
Brucellosis is a disease typically
affecting individuals that work in contact with infected farm animals
or with animal-derived tissues (17, 19, 20); the incidence
of this disease has fallen in the countries that have attempted to
eradicate the infection in animals. The food-borne transmission of
brucella is well known and is especially common through the consumption
of contaminated raw milk and cheese (2), while
person-to-person transmission has been reported but remains extremely
rare (15). Transmission occurs frequently via aerosol
inhalation of infected fluid, allowing entry of brucella through the
respiratory mucosa (8). A number of cases of
laboratory-acquired infections have been reported (9-12, 15, 16,
18). Laboratory-associated infections represent 2% of reported
cases of brucellosis (4, 5, 13), demonstrating the high risk
of acquiring brucella infection in clinical microbiology laboratories
where these highly infective bacteria are handled. The attack rate in
cases of accidental laboratory exposure ranges from 30 to 100%,
depending on the location of workers and the quantity of bacteria
involved (1, 6, 7, 11, 22). The recommended treatment for
acute infection is based on the combination of tetracycline or
doxycycline with streptomycin or rifampicin for a period of 4 to 6 weeks.
We report on an outbreak of brucellosis in the Experimental
Microbiology Laboratory of the Institute of Microbiology and Virology of the University of Sassari, Italy, after an accidental exposure to a
laboratory strain of Brucella abortus. Between November 1990 and March 1991, a total of 12 people working at different locations in
the laboratory developed acute brucellosis, with an attack rate of
31%. The outbreak originated from the accidental rupture of a
polystyrene centrifuge tube containing live microorganisms during
transfer of the tube from one room to another. The source of infection
was a B. abortus biotype 1 atypical strain previously isolated from a camel. Immediately after the tube rupture, the person
that caused the accident (patient 1) used directly applied 3% phenol
solution and paper towels soaked with the same germicide to immediately
decontaminate the area, wearing a single-use mask and rubber gloves.
The laboratory was evacuated within 45 min, and the germicide was
removed after 60 min by the same operator.
The accident occurred in the first week of October 1990, and despite
the immediate application of all recommended safety guidelines (14, 16), 6 weeks later three laboratory employees
(including the one that provoked the accident) suffered from fever,
chills, sweats, weight loss, malaise, headaches, myalgia, and
arthralgia. Diagnosis of brucellosis was made by the Rose Bengal
microagglutination test, and the serologic titer of anti-B.
abortus antibodies was evaluated by using a standard tube
agglutination test (21). The original B. abortus
biotype 1 strain was obtained from blood samples of all the three
infected persons after 5 to 10 days of cultivation by using the BACTEC
NR-730 system (Becton Dickinson Laboratories); bacteria were isolated
in 5% sheep blood agar and were then identified by using standard
biochemical techniques. At the time of the first diagnosis,
agglutination titers were 1:640 for patients 1 and 2 and 1:320 for
patient 3 (Table 1).
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Brucella abortus Infection Acquired in
Microbiology Laboratories
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
TABLE 1.
Antibody titers of patients with brucellosis
All laboratory workers, including those working in other laboratories located on the same floor, the administrative office personnel, and people that visited the institute in the first week of October were then enrolled in a prospectic study. Blood samples were taken weekly for the first 3 months following the accident, then monthly until December 1991, and sera were tested to detect specific anti-B. abortus antibodies by using the standard tube agglutination test.
Nine weeks after the centrifuge tube rupture, four additional employees (patients 4 to 7) (including a woman who worked in the administrative office), tested positive by the anti-Brucella agglutination test, with a titer ranging from 1:340 to 1:1,280. Symptoms began 2 (patient 7) to 5 (patients 4 to 6) days after the detection of antibodies and included fever, myalgia, and malaise. One week later, patient 8 showed an antibody titer of 1:80, and on 7 January 1991, three more workers tested positive by agglutination (patients 9 to 11), with antibody titers ranging from 1:160 to 1:640, as shown in Table 1. All seropositive patients were immediately treated with a combined antibiotic therapy (see below), in most cases before the appearance of symptoms. The last patient (patient 12) seroconverted after an incubation period of more than 5 months, presenting an antibody titer of 1:640 (Table 1). Also in this case, the antimicrobial therapy was administered before the onset of symptoms. In December 1991, 1 year after the outbreak, only patient 7 still tested positive for specific anti-Brucella antibodies, albeit at a low titer (1:80).
The incubation time of laboratory-acquired brucellosis ranged from 6 weeks to 5 months, in accordance with other reports (1, 18); there was no correlation between incubation time and the location of workers in the laboratory when the accident occurred, with the exception of patient 1, who perpetrated the accident and was the first to show signs of infection.
All symptomatic (patients 1 to 3) and asymptomatic but seropositive (patients 4 to 12) patients were treated immediately after seroconversion with a combination of 200 mg of doxycyline plus 600 mg of rifampicin every day for 6 weeks. Since the first group of patients (patients 1 to 3) experienced notable side effects at the beginning of therapy (including body temperature raised to as high as 40°C after every antibiotic administration and hallucinations), the workers who were treated next (patients 4 to 12) were administered low doses of cortisone during the first week of antibiotic therapy in order to avoid the toxic effects of endotoxin release.
Symptoms were milder in patients who received specific therapy before clinical manifestations of infection; fever, headaches, and chills were resolved in these patients in a few days, in contrast to the 2- to 3-week duration of these symptoms in patients 1 to 3. Anorexia, malaise, and myalgia or arthralgia generally lasted for 2 or 3 additional weeks in most patients.
The milder course of disease in patients who received antimicrobial therapy immediately after seroconversion and before clinical onset (patients 4 to 12) indicates the importance of a prompt diagnosis based on serological tests when an outbreak occurs in a laboratory. In this work, we show that seroconversion occurs in most cases before the onset of symptoms, thus allowing the administration of early treatment. These data emphasize the importance of monitoring the antibody titers in patients exposed to brucella.
The antibody titers of all 12 patients were monitored for more than 1 year after the laboratory outbreak; results shown in Table 1 clearly demonstrate that the antibody titer rises rapidly and decreases very slowly after antibiotic therapy, falling to undetectable levels only after 1 year. The decrease of antibody titer was faster in patients treated before the appearance of clinical symptoms.
No incomplete recovery, relapse, or complications occurred in any patient during the following 8 years. Ariza et al. reported a relapse rate of 38.8% in brucellosis patients treated with rifampicin and doxycyline (3). The absence of relapse or complications in all patients involved in the described laboratory outbreak could be related either to a low virulence for humans of the B. abortus strain that was isolated from a camel or to the prompt and effective therapy administered, especially in asymptomatic but seropositive patients.
These data highlight the importance of monitoring antibody titers of all individuals exposed to brucella, in particular in large outbreaks of infection, when preventive treatment described (22) for small epidemics is not practicable.
The number of personnel affected by brucellosis confirms the high risk of transmission of the infection after a laboratory accident, despite the immediate applications of safety measures, and demonstrate the very fast aerosol spread of bacteria. The reported case of laboratory outbreak underlines the fact that Brucella species should be handled according to the most stringent safety measures, including the use of safety boxes for biohazard transport within laboratories, not only in clinical microbiology but also in research departments.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This work was supported by grants from the University of Sassari (Progetto di Ricerca sul 60%).
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biomedical Sciences, Division of Experimental and Clinical Microbiology, University of Sassari, Viale S. Pietro 43/B, 07100 Sassari, Italy. Phone: 39 079 228299. Fax: 39 079 212345. E-mail: fioripl{at}ssmain.uniss.it.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Al-Aska, A. K., and A. H. Chagla. 1989. Laboratory-acquired brucellosis. J. Hosp. Infect. 14:69-71[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 2. | Altekruse, S. F., B. B. Timbo, J. C. Mowbray, N. H. Bean, and M. E. Potter. 1998. Cheese-associated outbreaks of human illness in the United States, 1973 to 1992: sanitary manufacturing practices protect consumers. J. Food. Prot. 61:1405-1407[Medline]. |
| 3. | Ariza, J., F. Guidol, R. Pallares, G. Rufi, and P. Fernandez-Viladrich. 1985. Comparative trial of rifampicin-doxycycline versus tetracycline-streptomycin in the therapy of human brucellosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 28:248-551. |
| 4. | Collins, C. H. 1998. Laboratory-acquired infections, p. 36-37. Butterworth and Company, Ltd., London, England. |
| 5. | Fleming, D. O., J. H. Richardson, J. J. Tulis, and D. Vesley. 1995. Laboratory safety: principles and practices, 2nd ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 6. | Grammont-Cupillard, M., L. Berthet-Badetti, and P. Dellamonica. 1996. Brucellosis from sniffing bacteriological cultures. Lancet 348:1733-1734[Medline]. |
| 7. | Gruner, E., E. Bernasconi, R. L. Galeazzi, D. Bhul, R. Heinzle, and D. Nadal. 1994. Brucellosis: an occupational hazard for medical laboratory personnel. Report of five cases. Infection 22:33-36[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 8. | Kauffman, A. F., M. A. Fox, J. M. Boyce, D. C. Anderson, M. E. Potter, W. J. Martond, and C. M. Patton. 1980. Airborne spread of brucellosis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 353:105-114[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 9. |
Martin-Mazuelos, E.,
M. C. Nogales,
C. Florez,
J. M. Gomez-Mateos,
F. Lozano, and A. Sanchez.
1994.
Outbreak of Brucella melitensis among microbiology laboratory workers.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:2035-2036 |
| 10. | Meyer, K. F., and B. Eddie. 1941. Laboratory infections due to Brucella. J. Infect. Dis. 68:24-32. |
| 11. | Miller, C. D., J. R. Songer, and J. F. Sullivan. 1987. A twenty-five year review of laboratory acquired human infection at the National Animal Disease Center. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 48:271-275[Medline]. |
| 12. |
Olle-Goig, J. E., and J. Canela-Soler.
1987.
An outbreak of Brucella melitensis infection by airborne transmission among laboratory workers.
Am. J. Public Health
77:335-338 |
| 13. | Pike, R. M. 1978. Past and present hazards of working with infectious agents. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 102:333-336[Medline]. |
| 14. | Pike, R. M. 1979. Laboratory-acquired infections: incidence, fatalities, cases and prevention. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 33:41-66[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 15. | Ruben, B., J. D. Band, P. Wong, and J. Colville. 1991. Person-to-person transmission of Brucella melitensis. Lancet 337:14-15[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 16. | Sewell, D. L. 1995. Laboratory-associated infection and biosafety. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 8:389-405[Abstract]. |
| 17. | Shapiro, S., and J. D. Wong. 1999. Brucella, p. 625-631. In P. R. Murray, E. J. Baron, M. A. Pfaller, F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 7th ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 18. |
Staszkiewicz, J.,
C. M. Lewis,
J. Colville,
M. Zervos, and J. Band.
1991.
Outbreak of Brucella melitensis among microbiology laboratory workers in a community hospital.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
29:287-290 |
| 19. | Wallach, J. C., L. E. Samartino, A. Efron, and P. C. Baldi. 1997. Human infection by Brucella melitensis: an outbreak attributed to contact with infected goats. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 19:315-321[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 20. | Young, E. J. 1983. Human brucellosis. Rev. Infect. Dis. 5:821-842[Medline]. |
| 21. | Young, E. J. 1991. Serological diagnosis of human brucellosis: analysis of 214 cases by agglutination test and review of the literature. Rev. Infect. Dis. 13:359-372[Medline]. |
| 22. | Zervos, M. J., and G. Bostic. 1997. Exposure to Brucella in the laboratory. Lancet 349:651[Medline]. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»