Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T21:01:45.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Brucellosis Card test in screening patients for brucellosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

G. F. Araj ,
G. M. Brown ,
M. M. Haj  and
N. V. Madhvan
G. F. Araj
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 24923, Kuwait 13110
G. M. Brown
Affiliation:
National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, Iowa, 50010, USA
M. M. Haj
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine and Jahra Hospital, Kuwait
N. V. Madhvan
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine and Jahra Hospital, Kuwait
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Brucellosis Card test (Brewers' Diagnostic Kits, Hynson, Westcott and Dunning, Inc., Baltimore, Md.) was evaluated in relation to the Brucelloslide test (bioMérieux, France), the microagglutination test (MAT) and the demonstration of brucella-specific IgG, IgM and IgA in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). A total of 573 serum specimens was tested. These included sera from patients with acute brucellosis (159), chronic brucellosis (23) and patients who had been diagnosed previously as having had brucella infection (155). Control groups consisted of patients with diseases other than brucellosis (52), others with noninfectious diseases (20), and healthy individuals (164). The Card test detected 100% of the patients with acute and 61% of the patients with chronic brucellosis. The sera from the control groups were all negative. Similar results were obtained with the Brucelloslide test and the MAT. The ELISA test detected brucellaspecific Ig of all classes in the serum of patients with acute brucellosis, and IgG and IgA in the serum of patients with chronic brucellosis. In the latter group, IgM was also detected in 32% of the sera. Twenty-three per cent of sera with titres of 20 by the MAT were positive on the Card test and had ELISA titres for IgM, IgG and IgA of 400. Characterization of the antibodies involved in the Card test showed that sera with IgM ELISA titres of 1600, or an IgM titres of 800 together with IgG and IgA titres ≥ 200 were Card test positive. Higher IgG (≥ 1600) plus IgA (≥ 400) titres were required to produce a positive Card test in the absence of IgM or when the IgM titre was ≤ 200. The Card test has a potential value as a rapid screening test for humans with acute brucellosis and shows similar results to Brucelloslide and MAT tests. ELISA, however, remains the most reliable test for diagnosis of brucellosis especially in patients with chronic and complicated stages of the disease.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , June 1988 , pp. 389 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

Araj, G. F., Lulu, A. R., Mustafa, M. Y. & Khateeb, M. I. (1986 a). Evaluation of ELISA in the diagnosis of acute and chronic brucellosis in human beings. Epidemiology and Infection 97, 457–469.Google ScholarPubMed
Araj, G. F., Lulu, A. R., Saadah, M. A., Mousa, A. M., Strannegard, I.-L. & Shakir, R. A. (1986 b). Rapid diagnosis of central nervous system brucellosis by ELTSA. Journal of Neuroimmunology 12, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettelheim, K. A., Maskill, W. J., & Pearce, J. (1983). Comparison of standard and microagglutination techniques for determining brucella antibodies. Epidemiology and Infection 90, 33–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, T. M., Sulzer, C. R., Frix, M. K. & Feldman, R. A. (1974). Brucellosis in the United States, 1960–1972. An abattoir-associated disease. II. Diagnostic aspects. Medicine 53, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbel, M. J. (1972). Identification of the immunoglobulin class activity in the Rose Bengal plate test for bovine brucellosis. Epidemiology and Infection 70, 770–797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, G. (1971). The Rose Bengal test. Veterinary liecord 88, 447–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz, R. E., Maravi-Poma, E. & Rivero, A. (1976). Comparison of counter-immunoelectrophoresis with other serological tests in the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 53, 417–424.Google Scholar
Diaz, R. E., Maravi-Poma, E., Deloado, G. & Rivero, A. (1978). Rose Bengal plate agglutination and counter-immunoelectrophoresis test on spinal fluid in the diagnosis of brucella meningitis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 7, 236–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fao/Who Expert Committee on Brucellosis (1971). World Health Organization technical report series no. 404: 5th report. Geneva.Google Scholar
Heremans, J. F., Vaerman, J. P. & Vaerman, C. (1963). Studies on the immune globulins of human serum. II. A study of the distribution of anti-brucella and anti-diphtheria antibody activities among IgG, IgM, IgA, globulin fractions. Journal of Immunology 91, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kambal, A. M., Mahgoub, E. S., Jamjoom, G. A. & Chowdhury, N. H. (1983). Brucellosis in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A microbiological and clinical study. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 77, 820–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, W. R., McCaughey, W. J., Coghlan, J. D., Payne, D. J. H., Quaife, R. A., Robertson, L. & Farrell, I. D. (1968). Techniques and interpretation in the serological diagnosis of brucellosis in man. Journal of Medical Microbiology 1, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, B. & Amerault, T. E. (1962). An evaluation of acidified plate test antigens for detecting bovine brucellosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 23, 1031–1033.Google ScholarPubMed
Lennette, E. H., Balows, A., Hausler, W. J. Jr & Shadomy, H. J. (1985). Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 4th ed.Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology.Google Scholar
Levieux, D. (1974). Immunoglobulins bovines et brucellosis. II. Activité des IgGl, IgG2, et IgM du sérum dans les réactions d'agglutination, de coombs, de fixation du complément et dans le test au Rose Bengal. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 5, 343–354.Google Scholar
Lulu, A. R., Araj, G. F., Khateeb, M. I., Mustafa, M. Y., Yusuf, A. R. & Fenech, F. F. (1988). Human brucellosis in Kuwait. A prospective study of 400 cases. Quarterly Journal of Medicine. In press.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicoletti, P. (1967). Utilization of the card test in brucellosis eradication. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 151, 1778–1783.Google Scholar
Nicoletti, P. & Fadai-Ghotbi, M. M. (1971). A comparison of the tube agglutination and card tests for the diagnosis of Drucella melitensis infection in humans. Canadian Journal of Public Health 62, 443–445.Google ScholarPubMed
O'reilly, D. J. & Cunningham, B. (1971). An assessment of the brucellosis card test. Veterinary Record 88, 590–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parratt, D., Neilson, K. H., White, R. G. & Payne, D. J. H. (1977). Radio-immunoassay of IgM, IgG and IgA brucella antibodies. Lancet i, 1075–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, J. M., Deyoe, B. L. & Stone, S. S. (1976). Identification of immunoglobulins associated with complement fixation, agglutination, and low pH buffered antigen tests for brucellosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 37, 319–324.Google Scholar
Rose, J. E. & Roepke, M. H. (1957). An acidified antigen for detection of non-specific reactions in the plate agglutination test for bovine brucellosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 18, 550–555.Google Scholar
Russell, A. O., Patton, C.M. & Kaufmann, A. F. (1978). Evaluation of the card test for diagnosis of human brucellosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 7, 454–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sippel, J. E., El-Masry, N. A. & Farid, Z. (1982). Diagnosis of human brucellosis with ELISA. Lancet ii, 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, P. C. (1966). Immunoglobulin patterns of antibodies against brucella in man and animals. Journal of Immunology 96, 457–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar