BACKGROUND: Intestinal microsporidiosis is the most common cause of chronic diarrhea in HIV/AIDS infected patients. The diagnosis of intestinal microsporidia depends on the detection of the spores by staining either with Chromotrope 2R or with fluorchrome uvitex 2B methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare the Chromotrope-2R and Uvitex-2B in detecting intestinal microsporidial spores from HIV/ AIDS patients at Nekempte Hospital. METHODS: A total of 120 single fresh stool samples were collected, and processed by water ether sedimentation method; stained with Uvitex-2B and observed microspridial spore under fluorescent microscope. From same stool samples, smear were prepared and stained with Chromotrope-2R method for the detection of intestinal microsporidial spores using light microscope. RESULTS: Uvitex 2B detected 5/120 (4.2%) while Chromotrope 2R detected 4/120 (3.3%) and there was no statistical significance difference between the two methods (P>0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of the chromotrope-2R method relative to Uvitex-2B were 80% and 100%, respectively and positive and negative predictive values of Chromotrope-2R relative to the Uvitex 2B were 100% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on its relative simplicity for processing, in terms of low cost materials (light microscopes compared to fluorescent microscopes) and reagents, make Chromotrope-2R to be recommended for diagnosis of microsporiadia infection in peripheral labs. Even though Uvitex-2B is superior, its application in peripheral health facilities is questionable and demanding.
BACKGROUND: Intestinal microsporidiosis is the most common cause of chronic diarrhea in HIV/AIDS infectedpatients. The diagnosis of intestinal microsporidia depends on the detection of the spores by staining either with Chromotrope 2R or with fluorchrome uvitex 2B methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare the Chromotrope-2R and Uvitex-2B in detecting intestinal microsporidial spores from HIV/ AIDSpatients at Nekempte Hospital. METHODS: A total of 120 single fresh stool samples were collected, and processed by water ether sedimentation method; stained with Uvitex-2B and observed microspridial spore under fluorescent microscope. From same stool samples, smear were prepared and stained with Chromotrope-2R method for the detection of intestinal microsporidial spores using light microscope. RESULTS: Uvitex 2B detected 5/120 (4.2%) while Chromotrope 2R detected 4/120 (3.3%) and there was no statistical significance difference between the two methods (P>0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of the chromotrope-2R method relative to Uvitex-2B were 80% and 100%, respectively and positive and negative predictive values of Chromotrope-2R relative to the Uvitex 2B were 100% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on its relative simplicity for processing, in terms of low cost materials (light microscopes compared to fluorescent microscopes) and reagents, make Chromotrope-2R to be recommended for diagnosis of microsporiadia infection in peripheral labs. Even though Uvitex-2B is superior, its application in peripheral health facilities is questionable and demanding.