Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Women`s Health Reviews

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4048
ISSN (Online): 1875-6581

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Brucellosis Serostatus Among Pregnant Women with Spontaneous Abortion and Stillbirth

Author(s): Ezatollah Rafiei Alavi*, Niloofar Rafiei Alavi , Romina Rafiei Alavi and Ermia Farokhi

Volume 18, Issue 2, 2022

Published on: 21 April, 2021

Article ID: e041021192952 Pages: 5

DOI: 10.2174/1573404817666210421115252

Price: $65

conference banner
Abstract

Background: Brucellosis in pregnancy is associated with severe outcomes ranging from abortion to neonatal development problems.

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the seroprevalence of brucellosis antibodies among pregnant women presented with spontaneous abortion and stillbirth.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 80 cases (stillbirth or spontaneous abortion) and 80 healthy pregnant women were serologically examined for brucellosis antibodies using Coombs, Wright and 2-mercaptoethanol (2ME) brucella agglutination tests. The questionnaire consisting of the following data was prepared for all the participants: gestational age, age, history of abortion, parity, source of dairy consumption, contact with livestock, urban or rural living setup, serological outcomes and education levels.

Results: The two groups were not significantly different in terms of the brucellosis test. Patients in the case group with and without infection were not significant in terms of contact with livestock, place of residence, dairy consumption, and history of abortion. However, education level was significantly different in the two, seropositive and seronegative, groups.

Conclusion: Our study did not find a significant number of seropositive brucellosis cases associated with stillbirth and spontaneous abortion. Further studies with greater samples are therefore recommended.

Keywords: Brucellosis, abortion, stillbirth, pregnant, neonatal, mediterranean fever.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Ahmadi A, Mohsenpour B, Doroudian P, Mokarizadeh A, Roshani D, Shahgheibi S, et al. A seroprevalence and relationship survey of brucellosis between pregnant women and women with spontaneous abortion in Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2017; 31: 42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14196/mjiri.31.42] [PMID: 29445671]
[2]
Bosilkovski M, Arapović J, Keramat F. Human brucellosis in pregnancy – an overview. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2020 nov; 20(4): 415-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2019.4499] [PMID: 31782698]
[3]
Khan MY, Mah MW, Memish ZA. Brucellosis in pregnant women. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32(8): 1172-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/319758] [PMID: 11283806]
[4]
Arenas-Gamboa AM, Rossetti CA, Chaki SP, Garcia-Gonzalez DG, Adams LG, Ficht TA. Human brucellosis and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Curr Trop Med Rep 2016; 3(4): 164-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40475-016-0092-0] [PMID: 29226068]
[5]
Poester FP, Samartino LE, Santos RL. Pathogenesis and pathobiology of brucellosis in livestock. Rev Sci Tech 2013; 32(1): 105-15.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.20506/rst.32.1.2193] [PMID: 23837369]
[6]
Gladstone M, Oliver C, Van den Broek N. Survival, morbidity, growth and developmental delay for babies born preterm in low and middle income countries - a systematic review of outcomes measured. PLoS One 2015; 10(3): e0120566.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120566] [PMID: 25793703]
[7]
Alsaif M, Dabelah K, Featherstone R, Robinson JL. Consequences of brucellosis infection during pregnancy: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Infect Dis 2018; 73: 18-26.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2018.05.023] [PMID: 29885371]
[8]
Hatami H, Hatami M, Souri H, Janbakhsh A-R, Mansouri F. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory features of brucellar meningitis. 2010; 13(6): 486-91.
[PMID: 21039003]
[9]
Zoghi E, Ed. A review on brucellosis. Proceeding of 2nd national congress of Brucellosis.
[10]
Nassaji M, Rahbar N, Ghorbani R, Lavaf S. The role of Brucella infection among women with spontaneous abortion in an endemic region. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2008; 20-3.
[11]
Hasanjani Roushan MR, Ebrahimpour S. Human brucellosis: An overview. 2015; 46-7.
[12]
Elshamy M, Ahmed AI. The effects of maternal brucellosis on pregnancy outcome. J Infect Dev Ctries 2008; 2(3): 230-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3855/jidc.268] [PMID: 19738356]
[13]
Kurdoglu M, Adali E, Kurdoglu Z, Karahocagil MK, Kolusari A, Yildizhan R, et al. Brucellosis in pregnancy: A 6-year clinical analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 281(2): 201-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1106-0] [PMID: 19434417]
[14]
Makala R, Majigo MV, Bwire GM, Kibwana U, Mirambo MM, Joachim A. Seroprevalence of Brucella infection and associated factors among pregnant women receiving antenatal care around human, wildlife and livestock interface in Ngorongoro ecosystem, Northern Tanzania. A cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis 2020; 20(1): 152.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-4873-7] [PMID: 32070308]
[15]
Kim S, Lee DS, Watanabe K, Furuoka H, Suzuki H, Watarai M. Interferon-γ promotes abortion due to Brucella infection in pregnant mice. BMC Microbiol 2005; 5(1): 22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-5-22] [PMID: 15869716]
[16]
Refai M. Incidence and control of brucellosis in the Near East region. Vet Microbiol 2002; 90(1-4): 81-110.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00248-1] [PMID: 12414137]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
18
1
Wayfinder Image
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy