Prevention of Laboratory-Acquired Brucellosis: Significant Side Effects of Prophylaxis

Maley, Michael; Kociuba, Katherine; Chan, Raymond C. K.

doi:10.1086/499112

Cited by 18 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 5 reports describing 86 exposures, the index cases were immigrants from (27)(28)(29) or travelers to (14,30) a country where the organism is endemic. The index cases in two reports describing eight exposures had consumed unpasteurized dairy products in a country where the organism is endemic (26) or imported the products to the United States (25).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three employees worked with isolates outside a BSC after misinterpretation of the Gram stain, all of whom developed LAB (27,35). Nine workers reportedly sniffed a culture plate of Brucella, five of whom developed LAB (AR, 56%) (13,14,28,(36)(37)(38). Exposure to Brucella sp.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Serological monitoring of exposed workers was described in 6 of 28 case reports and included 72 exposed workers, of which 13 seroconverted (14,28,30,32,38,44). A standard or microagglutination assay was used in each instance; however, one individual was treated for brucellosis based on IgM antibody detection using indirect fluorescence, although the Brucella microagglutination test results were negative (not categorized as a LAB case) (44).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A standard or microagglutination assay was used in each instance; however, one individual was treated for brucellosis based on IgM antibody detection using indirect fluorescence, although the Brucella microagglutination test results were negative (not categorized as a LAB case) (44). Variable monitoring timelines were reported, ranging from testing of acute-and convalescent-phase specimens (30) to biweekly testing for 3 months (14,28,32). Poor compliance with biweekly monitoring was described in one case report, in which 77% of workers missed two or more serum draws (28).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can lead to exposures to Brucella spp. in clinical laboratories during culturing and isolation of clinical specimens (12)(13)(14). Also, proper safety precautions (15,16) for Brucella isolates may not be observed in laboratories that rarely receive highly pathogenic organisms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Literature Review of Laboratory-Acquired Brucellosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Current awareness: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety

2006

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to keep subscribers up‐to‐date with the latest developments in their field, John Wiley & Sons are providing a current awareness service in each issue of the journal. The bibliography contains newly published material in the field of pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Each bibliography is divided into 20 sections: 1 Books, Reviews & Symposia; 2 General; 3 Anti‐infective Agents; 4 Cardiovascular System Agents; 5 CNS Depressive Agents; 6 Non‐steroidal Anti‐inflammatory Agents; 7 CNS Agents; 8 Anti‐neoplastic Agents; 9 Haematological Agents; 10 Neuroregulator‐Blocking Agents; 11 Dermatological Agents; 12 Immunosuppressive Agents; 13 Autonomic Agents; 14 Respiratory System Agents; 15 Neuromuscular Agents; 16 Reproductive System Agents; 17 Gastrointestinal System Agents; 18 Anti‐inflammatory Agents ‐ Steroidal; 19 Teratogens/fetal exposure; 20 Others. Within each section, articles are listed in alphabetical order with respect to author. If, in the preceding period, no publications are located relevant to any one of these headings, that section will be omitted.

show abstract