Cargando…
A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection
Objectives Amoebiasis is caused by the most common intestinal protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica . This parasite causes amoebic colitis, which is manifested by diarrhea, followed by dysentery. The laboratory diagnosis of intestinal amoebiasis in most cases is by microscopic examination of sto...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
2021
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9381307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35982881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732488 |
_version_ | 1784769051339259904 |
---|---|
author | Das, Sindhusuta Rajkumari, Nonika Gunalan, Anitha Rajavelu, Dhanalakshmi Olickal, Jeby Jose |
author_facet | Das, Sindhusuta Rajkumari, Nonika Gunalan, Anitha Rajavelu, Dhanalakshmi Olickal, Jeby Jose |
author_sort | Das, Sindhusuta |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives Amoebiasis is caused by the most common intestinal protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica . This parasite causes amoebic colitis, which is manifested by diarrhea, followed by dysentery. The laboratory diagnosis of intestinal amoebiasis in most cases is by microscopic examination of stool samples. Other nonroutine methods include coproantigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) from stool samples, serum ELISA for antibodies, stool culture, isoenzyme analysis, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The present study aimed to comparatively analyze the different diagnostic modalities used for the detection of E. histolytica from the stool sample of patients with intestinal amoebiasis. Materials and Methods This study was undertaken with 631 patients, during a period of 3 years, from January 2017 to December 2019. Stool specimen obtained from each patient was subjected to direct microscopic wet mount examination, coproantigen ELISA, and nested multiplex PCR, respectively. Results Out of all the patients tested, 5.2% were positive for E. histolytica. Among the positive cases, stool microscopy was positive in 3.17%, coproantigen ELISA was positive in 29 (4.6%) cases, and PCR was positive in 30 (4.75%) cases. Statistical Analysis The prevalence of E. histolytica infection was summarized as percentages. The three diagnostic tests done were statistically analyzed, taking microscopy as the gold standard. The agreement between techniques (microscopy, coproantigen ELISA, and PCR) was analyzed with kappa statistics. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were summarized as percentage with 95% confidence interval. Conclusion In all suspected amoebiasis cases, a combination of stool microscopy, coproantigen testing with molecular detection of the parasite offers the best approach to diagnosis of this parasitic infection. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9381307 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93813072022-08-17 A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection Das, Sindhusuta Rajkumari, Nonika Gunalan, Anitha Rajavelu, Dhanalakshmi Olickal, Jeby Jose J Lab Physicians Objectives Amoebiasis is caused by the most common intestinal protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica . This parasite causes amoebic colitis, which is manifested by diarrhea, followed by dysentery. The laboratory diagnosis of intestinal amoebiasis in most cases is by microscopic examination of stool samples. Other nonroutine methods include coproantigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) from stool samples, serum ELISA for antibodies, stool culture, isoenzyme analysis, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The present study aimed to comparatively analyze the different diagnostic modalities used for the detection of E. histolytica from the stool sample of patients with intestinal amoebiasis. Materials and Methods This study was undertaken with 631 patients, during a period of 3 years, from January 2017 to December 2019. Stool specimen obtained from each patient was subjected to direct microscopic wet mount examination, coproantigen ELISA, and nested multiplex PCR, respectively. Results Out of all the patients tested, 5.2% were positive for E. histolytica. Among the positive cases, stool microscopy was positive in 3.17%, coproantigen ELISA was positive in 29 (4.6%) cases, and PCR was positive in 30 (4.75%) cases. Statistical Analysis The prevalence of E. histolytica infection was summarized as percentages. The three diagnostic tests done were statistically analyzed, taking microscopy as the gold standard. The agreement between techniques (microscopy, coproantigen ELISA, and PCR) was analyzed with kappa statistics. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were summarized as percentage with 95% confidence interval. Conclusion In all suspected amoebiasis cases, a combination of stool microscopy, coproantigen testing with molecular detection of the parasite offers the best approach to diagnosis of this parasitic infection. Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 2021-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9381307/ /pubmed/35982881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732488 Text en The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Das, Sindhusuta Rajkumari, Nonika Gunalan, Anitha Rajavelu, Dhanalakshmi Olickal, Jeby Jose A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection |
title | A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection |
title_full | A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection |
title_fullStr | A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection |
title_short | A Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Coproantigen Serology, and Nested Multiplex PCR in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection |
title_sort | comparative analysis of microscopy, coproantigen serology, and nested multiplex pcr in the laboratory diagnosis of entamoeba histolytica infection |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9381307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35982881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732488 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dassindhusuta acomparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT rajkumarinonika acomparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT gunalananitha acomparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT rajaveludhanalakshmi acomparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT olickaljebyjose acomparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT dassindhusuta comparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT rajkumarinonika comparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT gunalananitha comparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT rajaveludhanalakshmi comparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection AT olickaljebyjose comparativeanalysisofmicroscopycoproantigenserologyandnestedmultiplexpcrinthelaboratorydiagnosisofentamoebahistolyticainfection |