Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in clinical specimens by PCR-SHELA.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Based on stool microscopy, an E. histolytica/E. dispar prevalence of 18.6% was found in León, Nicaragua about 10 years ago. Since then, new non-microscopic methods have been developed to discriminate between pathogenic E. histolytica and nonpathogenic E. dispar. The main objectives of the present study were to evaluate the true prevalence of E. histolytica among individuals with diarrhea and to assess the diagnostic procedures carried out at the health center level. METHODS: A descriptive study was carried out on patients with diarrhea. Parasite detection was performed by conventional microscopy on native preparations or concentrated and stained specimens, Triage Parasite Panel and by PCR for both E. histolytica and E. dispar. RESULTS: In 134 individuals with diarrhea, the prevalence of intestinal parasites was 69% as detected by direct stool examination. E. histolytica/E. dispar was found in eight (6%) of the samples, but the health centers reported 24%. In the Triage Parasite Panel only one case of E. histolytica/E. dispar was found. Analysis by PCR showed E. dispar in ten (7.5%) and E. histolytica in two cases (1.5%). The detection of intestinal coccidia and Dientamoeba fragilis required additional staining methods. CONCLUSIONS: PCR results showed that E. histolytica is a rare finding in patients with diarrhea. At the health centers, E. histolytica, E. histolytica/E. dispar were clearly overdiagnosed, with the consequence of overtreatment.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In this study the authors used the Elisa-based antigen detection tests that distinguish E. histolytica from E. dispar to examine the prevalence of E. histolytica infection in individuals from an urban slum in Fortaleza, Northeastern, Brazil. This test has a sensitivity and specificity that is comparable to PCR and isoenzyme analysis, which is the gold standard. Single stools samples were obtained from 735 individuals. The prevalence of E. histolytica infection was 14.9% (110/735) and 25.4%(187/735) for E. dispar-E. histolytica complex. The most affected age group for E. histolytica /E. histolytica-E. dispar infection was the 1-5 year olds but there was no remarkable decrease with age. There was no significant difference in colonization rates between males and females. The results from this survey demonstrate that E. histolytica is highly prevalent in the Community studied. Furthermore, it offers promise for the antigen detection test as a sensitive and technically simple tool for detecting E. histolytica infection in the field.