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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Das, Sindhusuta, Rajkumari, Nonika, Gunalan, Anitha, Rajavelu, Dhanalakshmi, Olickal, Jeby Jose
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