Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 14, Number 8—August 2008

Brucellosis in Infant after Familial Outbreak

On This Page
Article Metrics
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus

Cite This Article

To the Editor: Brucellosis is a known cause of small household outbreaks (1,2), usually attributed to exposure of all infected family members to the animal/animal product pathogen source. Although the means of disease transmission is well delineated (3), in certain cases the pathogen’s entry into the human body cannot be clearly defined; this has led to suggestions of direct human-to-human transmission and also to the increasing recognition of airborne brucellosis, which is important in the context of the role of Brucella spp. as potential biological weapons (4). Another understudied transmission route is entry by direct contact through skin and mucosal abrasions. We report a case of infantile brucellosis in which airborne transmission in the context of familial brucellosis or indirect contact with the animal source through other family members was considered the only possible means of infant infection.

In 2006, a 2.5-month-old girl was admitted to the Pediatric Department of the University Hospital of Ioannina, in a region of northwestern Greece where animal and human infection from Brucella melitensis is still common (5,6). She had a 2-week history of poor feeding and a 5-day history of swelling of the right wrist. She was born after 38 weeks’ gestation with a birthweight of 3,050 g and was fed formula milk exclusively. Results of the physical examination were normal except the finding of a tender swelling of the right wrist. The infant came from a family of shepherds, and her father and paternal grandfather had been treated for brucellosis 10 and 22 months ago, respectively. At that time, the whole family was screened for additional cases; screening was also often repeated at the patients’ followup examinations. On admission, laboratory tests showed characteristic relative lymphocytosis (leukocytes 10.5 × 109/L, 65.3% lymphocytes) and an increase in inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, 22 mg/L, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 47 mm/h). Results of a wrist x-ray were normal. Because brucellosis was suspected, serum agglutination test, ELISA, and blood PCR for B. melitensis were performed. Agglutination titer was 640; ELISA immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies and PCR results were positive. No organisms were grown in blood culture.

All family members were rescreened. The father and paternal grandfather had negative serum agglutination and ELISA IgM and positive IgG serologic results, indicating past infection. The mother and paternal grandmother were again negative. Veterinary investigation showed active disease in a few sheep of the family’s herd. The infant was treated with a combination of oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and rifampin for 6 weeks. The course of the illness was uneventful, and she recovered completely. Followup PCR results were negative for B. melitensis. Six months later, only an ELISA IgG had positive results; IgM and IgA antibody and agglutination test results were negative. The patient remains without relapse 2 years after treatment.

Awareness of brucellosis is low in disease-endemic areas, including knowledge of its transmission potential and its medical consequences.. As a consequence, familial clusters of brucellosis are the norm. Recognition of a human case should prompt investigation of other family members so that early recognition and treatment for other household case-patients are possible. However, limitations in eradicating the initial animal disease source may lead to continuous exposure and appearance of new cases after a protracted period, or to infection of new household members.

Our case raises the need for awareness of the transmission dynamics of Brucella spp. because the disease emerged in a household member who did not have any direct contact with the animal source or any related products. The baby was not breastfed and had not digested raw milk. Her feeding bottle was specifically used for formulated milk and for feeding her only. Ingestion of breast milk from an infected mother (7) and vertical transmission transplacentally or during delivery are acknowledged means of transmission (8), but in this case the mother had never had brucellosis (she had been repeatedly screened during her husband’s initial disease and followup). Neither previously infected household member had any clinical or laboratory sign of relapse or residual disease. The infant was never in contact with the infected animals and never carried to the sites where they were housed or taken out for grazing. Thus, the only way for the infant patient to be infected would be environmental exposure. Since the infant had not been carried to the animal sites, the pathogen must have been transmitted to the household by the clothes or skin of the father or grandfather, who had been shepherding the infected animals. Subsequently, the baby became infected either by inhaling infected aerosolized particles or by direct transmission of the pathogen through minor skin abrasions (which were specifically looked for on admission but were not seen) or mucosal surfaces.

This case suggests that B. melitensis may even affect persons who are not directly exposed to infected animals, through direct contact with contaminated persons or the environment. In this context, brucellosis can be considered as not simply a household disease but as a disease of the house.


Alexandros C. Makis*, Georgios Pappas†Comments to Author , Emmanouel Galanakis‡, Nikolaos Haliasos*, and Antigoni Siamopoulou*
Author affiliations: *University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece; †Institute of Continuing Medical Education of Ioannina, Ioannina; ‡University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece;



  1. Celebi  G, Kulah  C, Kilic  S, Ustundag  G. Asymptomatic Brucella bacteraemia and isolation of Brucella melitensis biovar 3 from human breast milk. Scand J Infect Dis. 2007;39:2058. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Almuneef  MA, Memish  ZA, Balkhy  HH, Alotaibi  B, Algoda  S, Abbas  M, Importance of screening household members of acute brucellosis cases in endemic areas. Epidemiol Infect. 2004;132:53340. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Pappas  G, Akritidis  N, Bosilkovski  M, Tsianos  E. Brucellosis. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:232536. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Pappas  G, Panagopoulou  P, Christou  L, Akritidis  N. Brucella as a biological weapon. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006;63:222936. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Galanakis  E, Bourantas  KL, Leveidiotou  S, Lapatsanis  PD. Childhood brucellosis in north-western Greece: a retrospective analysis. Eur J Pediatr. 1996;155:16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Galanakis  E, Makis  A, Bourantas  KL, Papadopoulou  ZL. Interleukin-3 and interleukin-4 in childhood brucellosis. Infection. 2002;30:334. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sarafidis  K, Agakidis  C, Diamanti  E, Karantaglis  N, Roilides  E. Congenital brucellosis: a rare cause of respiratory distress in neonates. Am J Perinatol. 2007;24:40912. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Arroyo Carrera  I, Lopez Rodriguez  MJ, Sapina  AM, Lopez Lafuente  A, Sacristan  AR. Probable transmission of brucellosis by breast milk. J Trop Pediatr. 2006;52:3801. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar


Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid1408.080325

Related Links


Table of Contents – Volume 14, Number 8—August 2008

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.



Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Georgios Pappas, Institute of Continuing Medical Education of Ioannina, H. Trikoupi 10, 45333, Ioannina, Greece;

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: July 13, 2010
Page updated: July 13, 2010
Page reviewed: July 13, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.