Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 30:11:107-113.
doi: 10.2147/JBM.S245513. eCollection 2020.

Usefulness of Blood Parameters for Preliminary Diagnosis of Brucellosis

Affiliations

Usefulness of Blood Parameters for Preliminary Diagnosis of Brucellosis

Alisha Akya et al. J Blood Med. .

Abstract

Background: Human brucellosis is a multisystem disease with a wide range of clinical signs which often leads to misdiagnosis and treatment delay. Early diagnosis of this disease can prevent the serious complications and mismanagements. This study aimed to evaluate the hematological parameters with predictive value for the diagnosis of brucellosis.

Methods: In this prospective case-control study which was done during 2015-2017 in Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah Province, west Iran, 100 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of brucellosis (brucellosis group) and 100 healthy individuals (control group) were studied. The hematological parameters, including hemoglobin (Hb), red blood cell (RBC), white blood cell (WBC) count, lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, platelet count (PLTs), mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet distribution width (PDW), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) of both groups were recorded. The data were statistically compared between the brucellosis and the control groups.

Results: The mean age of patients and healthy groups was 44.04 ± 23.11 and 37.92 ± 24.80, respectively (P = 0.062). The WBC, CRP and neutrophil counts were significantly higher in the brucellosis group (P < 0.05). Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the sensitivity and specificity were 54% and 66% for the WBC, 45% and 71% for the neutrophil and 65% and 72% for the CRP, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of Hb, RBC, WBC, lymphocyte and platelet count, MPV, PDW and ESR (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that WBC, CRP and neutrophil count can be used as valuable markers in the preliminary diagnosis of brucellosis. However, further researches are required to standardize these parameters for various forms of brucellosis.

Keywords: blood cell count; blood parameters; brucellosis; diagnosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ROC curve for the WBC and neutrophil.

References

    1. Cift A, Yucel MO. Comparison of inflammatory markers between brucella and non-brucella epididymo-orchitis. Int Braz J Urol. 2018;44(4):771–778. doi:10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0004.0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bashiri H, Sayad B, Madani SH. Study of the assimilation rate of immunoenzymatic tests and traditional serological methods in the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2013;6(4):1–4. doi:10.5812/jjm - DOI
    1. Baldane S, Sivgin S, Alkan TS, et al. An atypical presentation of brucellosis in a patient with isolated thrombocytopenia complicated with upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Case Rep Med. 2012;2012:473784. doi:10.1155/2012/473784 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marvi A, Asadi-Aliabadi M, Darabi M, Abedi G, Siamian H, Rostami-Maskopaee F. Trend analysis and affecting components of human brucellosis incidence during 2006 to 2016. Med Arch. 2018;72(1):17–21. doi:10.5455/medarh. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonfini B, Chiarenza G, Paci V, et al. Cross-reactivity in serological tests for brucellosis: a comparison of immune response of Escherichia coli O157: H7and Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 vs brucella spp. Vet Ital. 2018;54(2):107–114. doi:10.12834/VetIt.1176.6539.2 - DOI - PubMed