You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

Table 1.  

Characteristic Case-patients, n = 3,411
Median age, y (IQR)† 48.0 (35.8–57.0)
   <20 143 (4.4)
   20–40 933 (29.0)
   40–60 1,629 (50.6)
   >60 515 (16.0)
Sex‡  
   M 2,452 (73.9)
   F 867 (26.1%)
Nationality§  
   Han 1,818 (53.6)
   Others 1,572 (46.4)
Occupation¶  
   Farmer 2,591 (76.9)
   Herdsman 185 (5.5)
   Veterinarian 33 (1.0)
   Other 560 (16.6)
Contact history  
   Exposure to suspicious animals 2,066 (60.6)
   Contact with brucellosis patients 1,686 (49.4)
   Residence in endemic area 1,129 (33.1)
   Exposure to Brucella 58 (1.7)
Diagnostic test#  
   Brucella culture 424 (23.2)
   Antibody SAT 3,351 (99.1)
Titers**  
   1:50 9 (0.4)
   1:100 797 (35.2)
   1:200 643 (28.4)
   >1:400 815 (36.0)

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of brucellosis case-patients at enrollment in study of natural history and dynamic changes in clinical signs, serology, and treatment of brucellosis, China, 2014–2020*

*Values are no. (%) except as indicated. IQR, interquartile range; SAT, serum agglutination test. †Information on age was available for 3,220 participants. ‡Information on sex was available for 3,319 participants. §Information on nationality was available for 3,390 participants. ¶Information on occupation was available for 3,369 participants. #A total of 1,827 participants received Brucella culture, and 3,381 received SAT. **Among 3,381 participants tested by SAT, 2,264 had detailed positive titer information.

Table 2.  

Characteristic Acute brucellosis, n = 148 Chronic brucellosis, n = 148 Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
OR (95% CI) p value OR (95% CI) p value
Symptom, no. (%)
   Fever 108 (73.0) 97 (65.5) 0.74 (0.53–1.04) 0.0753 1.28 (0.35–5.42) 0.7159
   Sweating 52 (35.1) 65 (43.9) 1.38 (1.00–1.90) 0.0471 2.33 (0.69–7.55) 0.1578
   Myalgia 30 (20.3) 45 (30.4) 1.75 (1.23–2.45) 0.0014 2.48 (0.68–8.34) 0.1466
   Poor appetite 89 (60.1) 92 (62.2) 1.06 (0.77–1.47) 0.7427  
   Hepatosplenomegaly 23 (15.5) 21 (14.2) 0.82 (0.50–1.28) 0.3971  
   Arthritis 63 (42.6) 74 (50.0) 1.68 (1.22–2.31) 0.0013 4.11 (1.22–16.92) 0.0318
   Urogenital inflammation 18 (12.2) 13 (8.8) 0.75 (0.43–1.24) 0.2883  
   Neurobrucellosis 5 (3.4) 8 (5.4) 1.60 (0.76–3.06) 0.1805  
Laboratory test result, + SD
   Leukocytes, 109 cells/L 6.4 + 0.2 5.9 + 0.2 0.96 (0.89–1.03) 0.2480  
   Lymphocytes, 109 cells/L 1.9 + 0.1 2.0 + 0.1 0.92 (0.75–1.12) 0.4038  
   Monocytes, 109 cells/L 0.5 + 0.1 0.5 + 0.0 0.68 (0.35–1.13) 0.2227  
   CRP, mg/dL 33.7 + 3.6 23.8 + 3.3 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 0.0522 0.99 (0.97–1.02) 0.6948
   Procalcitonin, ng/mL 0.1 + 0.0 0.2 + 0.1 1.02 (0.64–1.29) 0.8930  
   ESR, mm/h 42.8 + 6.9 20.9 + 6.4 0.97 (0.95–1.00) 0.0481 0.98 (0.94–1.00) 0.1371

Table 2. Comparison of acute and chronic brucellosis at enrollment in study of natural history and dynamic changes in clinical signs, serologic testing, and treatment of brucellosis, China, 2014–2020*

*CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; OR, odds ratio.

CME / ABIM MOC

Natural History of and Dynamic Changes in Clinical Manifestation, Serology, and Treatment of Brucellosis, China

  • Authors: Hongyu Wang, MD; Hongyan Liu, MD; Qiran Zhang, MD; Xiaobo Lu, MD; Dan Li, MD; Haocheng Zhang, MD; Yan A. Wang, MD; Rongjiong Zheng, MD; Yi Zhang, MD; Zhangfan Fu, MS; Ke Lin, MS; Chao Qiu, PhD; Yan O. Wang, MD; Ye Gu, MD; Jingwen Ai, MD; Wenhong Zhang, MD
  • CME / ABIM MOC Released: 6/21/2022
  • Valid for credit through: 6/21/2023
Start Activity

  • Credits Available

    Physicians - maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™

    ABIM Diplomates - maximum of 1.00 ABIM MOC points

    You Are Eligible For

    • Letter of Completion
    • ABIM MOC points

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This activity is intended for infectious disease clinicians, internists, rheumatologists, cardiologists, neurologists, and other clinicians caring for patients with suspected or diagnosed brucellosis.

The goal of this activity is to better be able to describe clinical characteristics and serologic surveillance of human brucellosis during the disease course and after treatment, according to a large, retrospective, real-world cohort study among patients confirmed with brucellosis between 2014 and 2020 at 8 centers in Liaoning and Xinjiang Province, 2 of the most endemic areas in China.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will:

  1. Describe diagnosis and epidemiologic features of human brucellosis, according to a large, retrospective cohort study in China
  2. Determine clinical characteristics of human brucellosis during the disease course and after treatment, according to a large, retrospective cohort study in China
  3. Identify serologic surveillance of human brucellosis during the disease course and after treatment, and long-term treatment outcomes, according to a large, retrospective cohort study in China


Disclosures

Medscape, LLC requires every individual in a position to control educational content to disclose all financial relationships with ineligible companies that have occurred within the past 24 months. Ineligible companies are organizations whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, re-selling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

All relevant financial relationships for anyone with the ability to control the content of this educational activity are listed below and have been mitigated according to Medscape policies. Others involved in the planning of this activity have no relevant financial relationships.


Faculty

  • Hongyu Wang, MD

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Hongyan Liu, MD

    The Sixth People’s Hospital of Shenyang
    Emergency Treatment and Innovation Center of Public Health Emergencies
    Liaoning Province, China

  • Qiran Zhang, MD

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Xiaobo Lu, MD

    Center for Infectious Diseases
    the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University
    Xinjiang Province, China

  • Dan Li, MD

    The Sixth People’s Hospital of Shenyang
    Emergency Treatment and Innovation Center of Public Health Emergencies
    Liaoning Province, China

  • Haocheng Zhang, MD

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Yan A. Wang, MD

    The Sixth People’s Hospital of Shenyang
    Emergency Treatment and Innovation Center of Public Health Emergencies
    Liaoning Province, China

  • Rongjiong Zheng, MD

    Center for Infectious Diseases
    the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University
    Xinjiang Province, China

  • Yi Zhang, MD

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Zhangfan Fu, MS

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Ke Lin, MS

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Chao Qiu, PhD

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Yan O. Wang, MD

    The Sixth People’s Hospital of Shenyang
    Emergency Treatment and Innovation Center of Public Health Emergencies
    Liaoning Province, China

  • Ye Gu, MD

    The Sixth People’s Hospital of Shenyang
    Emergency Treatment and Innovation Center of Public Health Emergencies
    Liaoning Province, China

  • Jingwen Ai, MD

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

  • Wenhong Zhang, MD

    Department of Infectious Diseases
    National Medical Center for Infectious Diseases
    National Clinical Research Center for Aging and Medicine
    Shanghai Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Biosafety Emergency Response
    Huashan Hospital
    Fudan University
    Shanghai, China

CME Author

  • Laurie Barclay, MD

    Freelance writer and reviewer
    Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Laurie Barclay, MD, has the following relevant financial relationships:
    Stocks, stock options, or bonds: AbbVie Inc. (former)

Editor

  • Jill Russell, BA

    Copyeditor 
    Emerging Infectious Diseases

Compliance Reviewer

  • Lisa Simani, APRN, MS, ACNP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance
    Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Lisa Simani, APRN, MS, ACNP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Peer Reviewer

This activity has been peer reviewed and the reviewer has no relevant financial relationships.


Accreditation Statements



In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by Medscape, LLC and Emerging Infectious Diseases. Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 1.0 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

    Contact This Provider

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™, you must receive a minimum score of 70% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read about the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or print it out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate, but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period, you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

CME / ABIM MOC

Natural History of and Dynamic Changes in Clinical Manifestation, Serology, and Treatment of Brucellosis, China

Authors: Hongyu Wang, MD; Hongyan Liu, MD; Qiran Zhang, MD; Xiaobo Lu, MD; Dan Li, MD; Haocheng Zhang, MD; Yan A. Wang, MD; Rongjiong Zheng, MD; Yi Zhang, MD; Zhangfan Fu, MS; Ke Lin, MS; Chao Qiu, PhD; Yan O. Wang, MD; Ye Gu, MD; Jingwen Ai, MD; Wenhong Zhang, MDFaculty and Disclosures

CME / ABIM MOC Released: 6/21/2022

Valid for credit through: 6/21/2023

processing....

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

Serum agglutination test plus exposure history were used to diagnose most cases of human brucellosis in 2 China provinces. After appropriate treatment, 13.3% of acute brucellosis cases progressed to chronic disease; arthritis was an early predictor. Seropositivity can persist after symptoms disappear, which might cause physicians to subjectively extend therapeutic regimens.

Introduction

Brucellosis is a zoonosis caused by the bacterium Brucella that typically manifests in insidious onset of fever, malaise, arthralgias, and nonspecific physical findings, including hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, or lymphadenopathy[1]. Accurate diagnosis and proper management of human brucellosis continues to challenge clinicians. Several studies have described the clinical characteristics of human brucellosis and evaluated diagnostic methods, but most of these studies are cross-sectional and focused on baseline manifestations or diagnostic accuracy[2–6]. Much remains unclear about the dynamic changes of clinical manifestations, serology, and the tendency of brucellosis to persist and become chronic during development and treatment.

The Study

We conducted a retrospective, real-world cohort study at 8 hospitals in Liaoning and Xinjiang Provinces, 2 of the most brucellosis-endemic areas in China, to investigate the characteristics of brucellosis during natural history and treatment. We enrolled patients confirmed to have brucellosis during 2014–2020. We collected information on contact history, clinical manifestations, laboratory parameters, and antibiotic therapy from the hospital information system and treatment outcome by telephone (Appendix, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/EID/ article/28/7/21-1766-App1.pdf). This research was carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committees of Huashan Hospital of Fudan University (KY2019–412). Informed consent was obtained from all patients before diagnosis, and patient data were anonymized.

We included 5,270 patients confirmed to have brucellosis during September 2014–December 2020. Three persons were excluded for positive HIV detection, 668 were excluded because they lacked positive culture or serologic results, and 1,191 were excluded for incomplete clinical information. We ultimately enrolled 3,411 persons; we performed follow-up for 1,676 persons at periods of 14, 28, 42, 90, 180, 360, or 720 days after diagnosis and treatment initiation (Appendix Figure 1).

Median participant age was 48 years (interquartile range 35.8–57.0 years). Most participants were men (2,452; 73.9%) and worked as farmers or herdsmen (2,776; 82.4%). A total of 2,066 (60.6%) had exposure history with suspicious animals, 1,686 (49.4%) had contact history with brucellosis patients, and 1,129 (33.1%) resided in a brucellosis-endemic area (Table 1).

Blood cultures were collected from 1,827 participants for diagnostic purposes; results were positive in 424 (23.2%) persons. Serum agglutination tests (SAT) were collected from 3,381 persons, and 3,351 (99.1%) reported positive results. A total of 1,797 persons received both tests; 394 (21.9%) tested positive on both, 28 (1.6%) tested positive by culture only, and 1,375 (76.5%) tested positive by SAT only. Among 2,264 patients with positive titers on SAT, titers were >1:400 in 36.0%, 1:200 in 28.4%, 1:100 in 35.2%, and 1:50 in 0.4% (Table 1). Seasonal epidemics were observed during March–July each year, whereas total diagnosed cases decreased annually during 2015–2019 (Appendix Figure 2).

We observed the natural history of brucellosis with symptom duration <180 days (early stage) or >180 days (late stage) before patients received antibiotic therapy. The 3 most common symptoms in early-stage disease were fatigue (72.3%), fever (64.0%), and sweating (34.6%). The most common symptoms in late-stage disease were fatigue (71.6%), fever (61.1%), and arthritis (36.6%) (Figure 1, panel A). Arthritis was more common in the late stage than the early stage (20.7%; p<0.0001). We observed neurobrucellosis in 9.9% of patients in the early stage and in 4.1% of patients in the late stage (p = 0.0020). After adjusting for confounding factors through propensity score-matching (PSM)[7], culture-diagnosed patients (compared with patients with SAT-diagnosed brucellosis) had higher incidence of fever (311 [81.8%] vs. 244 [58.9%]; p<0.0001), sweating (177 [46.6%] vs. 95 [25.0%]; p<0.0001), poor appetite (271 [71.3%] vs. 195 [51.3%]; p<0.0001), and hepatosplenomegaly (67 [17.6%] vs. 45 [11.8%]; p<0.0001). These patients also exhibited higher C-reactive protein (34.5 + 1.8 vs. 24.7 + 1.7; p = 0.0002) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (45.6 + 1.7 vs. 29.3 + 1.4; p = 0.0290), which could be caused by active bloodstream infection (Appendix Table 1).

Enlarge

Figure 1. Dynamic characteristics of clinical manifestations in case-patients with acute and chronic brucellosis, China, 2014–2020. A) Natural symptom development with symptom duration <180 days (early stage) or >180 days (late stage) before patients received antibiotic therapy. B) Kaplan-Meier curve of symptomatic case-patients after treatment initiation.

Among 1,676 participants with whom we conducted follow-up, we observed further clinical characteristics after treatment initiation. Most newly developed manifestations were reported within the first 2 weeks, but most patients recovered with persistent treatment (Appendix Figure 3). Two weeks after treatment initiation, 107 patients had newly developed cardiac inflammation, 112 neurobrucellosis, 140 urogenital inflammation, and 146 arthritis. Overall, 1,453 (86.7%) persons with acute brucellosis symptomatically recovered within 180 days after appropriate treatment, whereas 223 (13.3%) were still symptomatic after 180 days and chronic brucellosis developed (Figure 1, panel B)[8]. In the chronic phase, arthritis (89 [25.6%]), fatigue (60 [17.3%]), and fever (57 [16.4%]) became the 3 most common manifestations (Appendix Figure 4).

After conducting PSM for age, sex, nationality, and year of enrollment, we performed multivariate logistic regression to identify risk factors for chronic brucellosis in 148 acute cases and 148 chronic cases (Table 2). Fever, sweating, myalgia, arthritis, and C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rates at baseline were possible predictors for chronic brucellosis in univariate analysis (p<0.10). Arthritis was the only risk factor after multivariate analysis (odds ratio 4.11 [95% CI 1.22–16.92]; p = 0.0318).

Dynamic SAT surveillance among 1,676 participants suggested that 53.8% (902/1,676) remained seropositive 42 days after treatment and 33.9% (518/1,676) remained seropositive 180 days after treatment (Figure 2, panel A). In acute cases, 413 remained seropositive and 1,040 seroconverted after 180 days. In chronic cases, 105 remained seropositive and 118 seroconverted (p<0.0001). The overall SAT titers decreased at the chronic phase; fewer patients had a titer of >1:400 (Figure 2, panel B).

Enlarge

Figure 2. Dynamic characteristics of serum agglutination test and treatment courses in case-patients with brucellosis, China, 2014–2020. A) Seroconversion after treatment initiation; B) serum agglutination test titer distribution at baseline and 180 days after treatment initiation; C) treatment length of case-patients without systemic involvement; D) possible reasons for lengthened treatment in brucellosis case-patients without systemic involvement.

We observed treatment outcomes in 432 patients without systemic involvement, of whom 307 (71.1%) received doxycycline and rifampin, 29 (6.7%) received doxycycline and levofloxacin, and 96 (22.2%) received triad therapy. In comparison with the standard 6-week treatment course[8–10], 75.2% (325/432) patients received antibiotic therapy for >42 days; median course of treatment was 90 (interquartile range 43–193) days (Figure 2, panel C). Further analysis in treatment elongation found that 26/325 (8.0%) were still symptomatic; the most common manifestations were sweating (61.5%), fatigue (50.0%), and fever (26.9%). A total of 174/325 (53.5%) participants were asymptomatic but seropositive, which could lead clinicians to subjectively extend antibiotic treatment; 125/325 (38.5%) participants were asymptomatic and seronegative (Figure 2, panel D). We further analyzed 107 participants who completed treatment within 42 days to determine whether standard treatment led to persistent symptoms or recurrence. Of those participants, 48/107 (44.9%) remained seropositive, 2/107 (1.9%) reported persistent symptoms, and 1/107 (0.9%) participant’s illness was considered a recurrence 2 years later.

The first limitation of our study is that we failed to follow up culture results during treatment. Second, we failed to distinguish transient and persistent exposure history, which might play a role in persistent symptoms or serologic results. Finally, infection was diagnosed by heterogenous methods, including culture and a series of serologic tests, which might introduce bias in baseline and prognosis analysis.

Table of Contents

  1. Abstract and Introduction
  2. Conclusions