THE IMPORTANCE OF INFLAMMATION MARKERS IN ACUTE BRUCELLOSIS: DIAGNOSTIC, PROGNOSTIC, MONITORING, DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Keywords:
Acute brucellosis; Inflammation markers; C-reactive protein (CRP); Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR); Systemic immune-inflammation index (SII); Osteoarticular involvement; Diagnostic biomarkers; Prognostic value; Differential diagnosis; Treatment monitoring; Endemic regionsAbstract
Acute brucellosis, a zoonotic bacterial infection caused by “Brucella” species, presents with systemic symptoms including fever, arthralgia, malaise, and potential focal complications, particularly osteoarticular involvement in 10–85% of cases (most commonly 20–40% in many series). Inflammation is central to its pathogenesis, with “Brucella” persisting intracellularly in macrophages and eliciting variable acute-phase responses. Traditional markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), white blood cell (WBC) count, and neutrophils, alongside derived ratios like neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), and systemic inflammation response index (SIRI), provide accessible, cost-effective tools for preliminary diagnosis, severity assessment, complication prediction (e.g., osteoarticular in up to 30–70% of complicated cases), and treatment monitoring in endemic regions. These markers also aid in differential diagnosis from mimics like malaria, typhoid, tuberculosis, or viral fevers, where patterns differ (e.g., marked leukocytosis in pyogenic infections vs. normal/low WBC in brucellosis). Global incidence estimates range from 2.1 million annual cases, with high endemicity in Asia and Africa (e.g., rates >35/100,000 in some areas like Ningxia, China). Emerging biomarkers like irisin and cytokines further enhance utility. Treatment considerations involve prolonged dual-antibiotic regimens (e.g., doxycycline + rifampin for 6 weeks; relapse rates 4.8–10%), with markers guiding response and detecting relapses. These tools facilitate early intervention in resource-limited settings, reducing chronicity and morbidity.
This review integrates etiopathogenetic insights with statistical evidence from recent studies to underscore their multifaceted clinical value. Besides explains synthesizes etiopathogenetic mechanisms, clinical features, and systemic complications, incorporating updated insights from recent consensus guidelines and studies to enhance understanding and optimize patient outcomes.
References
Akya A, et al. Usefulness of Blood Parameters for Preliminary Diagnosis of Brucellosis. Int J Infect. 2020;7(1):e7125307.
Sen P, et al. Predictive Value of Inflammation Markers in Brucellosis. Arch Iran Med. 2019;22(12):710-716.
Çağlar Y, et al. Diagnostic Value of Hematological Inflammatory Ratios in Brucellosis. Preprints. 2025. doi:10.20944/preprints202510.1751.v1.
Böncüoğlu E, et al. Inflammatory marker comparison in childhood brucellosis: predicting osteoarticular involvement. Turk J Pediatr. 2025;67(2):1-10.
Xu N, et al. Improved Early Detection of Focal Brucellosis Complications with Anti-Brucella IgG. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(11):e00903-20.
Şahin AM, et al. The Role of Laboratory Parameters in Predicting Osteoarticular Involvement in Brucellosis. EJMI. 2025;9(1):47-53.
Erkan REC, et al. Investigation of new inflammatory biomarkers in patients with brucella. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2024;125(3):178-183.
Zhou L, et al. A novel diagnostic model for brucellosis spondylitis using serum PINP and inflammatory factors. BMC Infect Dis. 2025. doi:10.1186/s12879-025-12404-1.
Jin M, et al. Research progress on complications of Brucellosis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1136674.
Pappas G, et al. Brucellosis. Lancet. 2006;367(9523):1805-1815 (updated epidemiology references from 2023–2025 global estimates).
Demirdag K, et al. Serum cytokine levels in patients with acute brucellosis and their relation to the traditional inflammatory markers. Pathogens and Disease. 2003;39(2):149.
Brucellosis Differential Diagnoses. Medscape. Updated Sep 8, 2025.
Cift A, et al. Comparison of inflammatory markers between brucella and non-brucella epididymo-orchitis. Int Braz J Urol. 2018;44(4):771-778.
Barkay O, et al. Determining Diagnostic Sensitivity: A Comparison of Rose Bengal Test, Coombs Gel Test, ELISA and Bacterial Culture in Brucellosis Diagnosis. Diagnostics. 2024;14(14):1546.
Brucellosis Treatment & Management. Medscape. Updated Sep 8, 2025.
Huang S, et al. Updated therapeutic options for human brucellosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024;18(8):e0012402.
About Brucellosis. CDC. Updated May 2, 2024.
Alavi SM, et al. Treatment of brucellosis: a systematic review of studies in recent twenty years. Caspian J Intern Med. 2013;4(2):636-641.
Lavigne JP, et al. What's new in the diagnosis and treatment of human brucellosis? Infect Dis Now. 2025;55(3):104956.
Tekin R, et al. Comparison of Inflammatory Markers between Adult and Pediatric Brucellosis Patients. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2020;13(8):e104058.






Azerbaijan
Türkiye
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Korea
Japan
India
United States of America
Kosovo