Epidemiological study of human brucellosis among febrile patients in Erbil-Kurdistan region, Iraq.

INTRODUCTION: Human brucellosis is one of the most common zoonosis infections, with an important impact on the health and economy worldwide. This study aimed to update and provide epidemiological information on this infection and evaluate Rose Bengal Test, which is used as an essential diagnostic test for brucellosis in Erbil. METHODOLOGY: A total of 325 participants seeking care and reporting fever at Rizgary Teaching Hospital were enrolled. Blood samples were tested for Brucella spp. antibodies using Rose Bengal Test and blood culture followed by species identification. A questionnaire was administered to detect the risk factors. RESULTS: The prevalence of probable and confirmed brucellosis was 12.3% (95% CI 9.2-16.3) and 9.5% (95% CI 6.8-13.2) respectively. The majority of cases were in the age group of 18-39 years. Brucellosis was significantly associated with raw milk consumption (OR = 10.3 95% CI 5-22.4) and contact with livestock (OR = 11.5 95% CI 5.6-23.9). Brucella melitensis (58.1%) and Brucella abortus (41.9%) are the dominant species in the area. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Rose Bengal Test in comparison to the blood culture were 100%, 96.9%, 77.5 %, and 100% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Brucellosis is a significant cause of fever in Erbil and could be diagnosed by the Rose Bengal Test taking into account the compatibility of clinical features with the positive result. The vaccination of livestock and boiling or pasteurization of milk are essential procedures to reduce the frequency of human brucellosis.

Dental risk factors associated with oral Helicobacter pylori infection: a cross-sectional study based on saliva antigen test.

INTRODUCTION: Besides stomach, the oral cavity is the second reservoir of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) that plays an important role in oral diseases and recurrent gastric infection. This study aimed to determine the risk factors of oral H. pylori infection for better human health. METHODOLOGY: Saliva samples from 280 subjects who visited the dental clinics were collected for the H. pylori antigen test. The data regarding age, gender, residence, frequency of tooth brushing, presence of dental caries and/or periodontitis were reported for each participant. Stool antigen Helicobacter pylori test was used to detect gastric infection. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of H. pylori in oral cavity and stool were 40.4%; 95% CI [34.8-46.2], and 36.4%; 95% CI [31-42.2], respectively and were not statistically significant (p = 0.546). The differences of positive rates of H. pylori infection according to the presence of periodontitis (54.7% vs 30.1%, p < 0.001, OR; 95% CI: 2.8 (1.7-4.6)) and dental caries (47.1% vs 32%, p = 0.001, OR; 95% CI: 2.2 (1.3-3.5)) were statistically significant. Living in rural areas increases the risk of acquiring H. pylori infection compared with urban areas (46.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.001, OR; 95% CI: 0.6 (0.4-1)). CONCLUSIONS: The H. pylori antigen test on saliva could be used as evidence of gastric infection. Oral diseases including periodontal diseases and caries are important risk factors for H. pylori colonization, so the professional treatment of these diseases may reduce the rate of new and recurrent gastric infection by H. pylori.

The impact of the three most common hand cleansing methods on the bacterial profile: a randomized clinical trial / El impacto de los tres métodos de limpieza de manos más comunes en el perfil bacteriano: un ensayo clínico aleatorizado

Introduction: The hand harbors different species of bacteria that may play a role in the transmission of infectious diseases. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the bacterial profile of hands and assess the efficacy of the three most common methods of hand cleansing on the reduction of that bacteria. Materials and methods: Hand swaps were collected from 150 adults. The identity of bacteria was done by standard microbiological procedures. Each participant applied one of three selected methods of hand cleansing namely, handwashing with water and plain soap, hand rubbing with an alcohol-based sanitizer, and hand wiping with alcohol-free hand sanitizer wipes. A second swap was collected after cleansing to determine the efficacy of each method by calculating the percentage of the reduction of isolated bacteria. Results: Most isolated bacteria were commensal flora like Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus (92%), and Corynebacterium spp (81.3%). Other pathogenic bacteria were isolated mainly, Staphylococcus aureus (32%), Escherichia coli (10%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2.6%), Klebsiella spp (2.6%) and Acinetobacter spp. (2%). The hand rubbing was more efficacy than handwashing without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05), and the hand wiping had lower efficacy than the other two methods with statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Conclusions: The hand is a serious source of infection due to the variety of bacteria on it. These bacteria can be eliminated either by handwashing with water and plain soap or hand rubbing with an alcohol-based sanitizer. Alcohol-free hand sanitizer wipes should be used just for cleaning without disinfection due to their low efficacy as a sanitizer (AU)

Introducción: La mano alberga diferentes especies de bacterias que pueden jugar un papel en la transmisión de enfermedades infecciosas. Este estudio se realizó para determinar el perfil bacteriano de las manos y evaluar la eficacia de los tres métodos más comunes de limpieza de manos en la reducción de esa bacteria. Materiales y métodos: Se recolectaron información de las manos de 150 adultos. La identidad de las bacterias se realizó mediante procedimientos microbiológicos estándar. Cada participante aplicó uno de los tres métodos seleccionados de limpieza de manos, a saber: lavarse las manos con agua y jabón común, frotarse las manos con un desinfectante a base de alcohol y limpiarse las manos con toallitas desinfectantes para manos sin alcohol. Se recogió una segunda muestra después de la limpieza para determinar la eficacia de cada método calculando el porcentaje de reducción de bacterias aisladas. Resultados: La mayoría de las bacterias aisladas fueron flora comensal como Staphylococcus Coagulasa Negativo (92%) y Corynebacterium spp (81,3%). Se aislaron otras bacterias patógenas principalmente, Staphylococcus aureus (32%), Escherichia coli (10%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2,6%), Klebsiella spp (2,6%) y Acinetobacter spp. (2%). Frotar las manos fue más eficaz que lavarse las manos sin una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (P> 0,05), y la limpieza de las manos tuvo una eficacia menor que los otros dos métodos con una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (P <0,001). Conclusiones: La mano es una fuente grave de infección debido a la variedad de bacterias que contiene. Estas bacterias pueden eliminarse lavándose las manos con agua y jabón común o frotándose las manos con un desinfectante a base de alcohol. Las toallitas desinfectantes para manos sin alcohol deben usarse solo para limpiar sin desinfectar debido a su baja eficacia como desinfectantes (AU)