| Literature DB >> 26633890 |
Joyobrato Nath1,2, Sankar Kumar Ghosh2, Baby Singha1, Jaishree Paul3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies carried out using culture or microscopy in most of the amoebiasis endemic developing countries, yielded confusing results since none of these could differentiate the pathogenic Entamoeba histolytica from the non-pathogenic Entamoeba dispar and Entamoeba moshkovskii. The Northeastern part of India is a hot spot of infection since the climatic conditions are most conducive for the infection and so far no systemic study has been carried out in this region. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26633890 PMCID: PMC4669114 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Screening protocol for Entamoeba positive stool samples using different screening techniques.
Numbers in each box represent positive samples obtained by each method out of total 1260 stool samples. The DNA Dot blot was carried out using a probe that hybridizes with E.h and /or E.d positive DNA samples.
Species discrimination of samples positive in microscopy, culture and dot blot screening using species specific PCR assay.
| Mono and mixed infection as detected in Singleplex PCR assay | Microscopy and culture result | Total no in PCR assay | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive by microscopy & culture | Positive by microscopy only | Positive by culture only | Negative by microscopy and culture | ||
|
| 37 | 19 | 9 | 11 | 76 |
|
| 29 | 21 | 4 | 20 | 74 |
|
| 4 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 32 |
|
| 4 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 13 |
|
| 19 | 17 | 5 | 3 | 44 |
|
| 18 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 35 |
|
| 11 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 18 |
| Negative | 7 | 11 | 3 | 947 | 968 |
|
| 129 (10.2%) | 122 (9.7%) | 23 (1.8%) | 986 (78.3%) | 1260 |
*Indicates samples positive either for E. histolytica or E. dispar or mixed when screened by DNA dot blot hybridization technique. The dot blot screen did not include a probe for E. moshkovskii.
Prevalence rate; mono and mixed infection of E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii as scored by species specific PCR assay.
|
| Total No. positive | Total EH | Total ED | Total EM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 76 | 76 | - | - |
|
| 74 | - | 74 | - |
|
| 32 | - | - | 32 |
|
| 13 | - | 13 | 13 |
|
| 44 | 44 | 44 | - |
|
| 35 | 35 | - | 35 |
|
| 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 |
|
| 292 | 173 (13.7) | 149 (11.8) | 98 (7.8) |
*EH = E. histolytica
*ED = E. dispar
*EM = E. moshkovskii
Prevalence of E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii infection, stratified by four states of North East under study during January, 2011 to January, 2014.
| State | No. examined | EH | Proportion (95% CI) | ED | Proportion (95% CI) | EM | Proportion (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 588 | 107 | 18.2 | 86 | 14.6 | 67 | 11.4 |
| (15.2, 21.6) | (11.9, 17.8) | (9.0, 14.3) | |||||
|
| 207 | 21 | 10.2 | 19 | 9.2 | 23 | 11.1 |
| (6.5, 15.3) | (5.8, 14.2) | (7.3, 16.4) | |||||
|
| 197 | 23 | 11.7 | 11 | 5.6 | 8 | 4.1 |
| (7.7, 17.2) | (3.0, 10.0) | (1.9, 8.3) | |||||
|
| 268 | 22 | 8.2 | 33 | 12.3 | 0 | 0 |
| (5.3, 12.3) | (8.7, 17.0) | ||||||
|
| 1260 | 173 | 13.7 | 149 | 11.8 | 98 | 7.8 |
| (11.9, 15.7) | (10.2, 13.8) | (6.4, 9.4) |
*EH = E. histolytica
*ED = E. dispar
*EM = E. moshkovskii
Fig 2Prevalence of E. histolytica, E. dispar and E. moshkovskii stratified by four Northeast Indian states.
Socio-demographic features of the study participants and their association with E. histolytica infection.
| Variables | No. examined | No. Positive (%) | OR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Government employees | 198 | 17 (8.6) | 1* | |
| Student & pre-school | 398 | 71 (17.8) | 2.31 (1.32, 4.05) | |
| Merchant | 212 | 21 (9.9) | 1.17 (0.60, 2.29) | |
| Daily laborers including Farmer, driver | 231 | 38 (16.5) | 2.10 (1.14, 3.85) | |
| House wife | 221 | 26 (11.8) | 1.42 (0.75, 2.70) | |
|
|
| |||
| Illiterate | 346 | 61 (17.6) | 2.18 (1.31, 3.63) | |
| Primary education | 353 | 57 (16.1) | 1.96 (1.17, 3.27) | |
| High School | 304 | 32 (10.5) | 1.20 (0.68, 2.10) | |
| College and above | 257 | 23 (8.9) | 1* | |
|
|
| |||
| Rural | 681 | 111 (16.3) | 1.62 (1.16, 2.27) | |
| Urban | 579 | 62 (10.7) | 1* | |
|
| 0.232 | |||
| Single | 737 | 94 (12.8) | 1* | |
| Married | 523 | 79 (15.1) | 1.23 (0.88, 1.68) | |
|
|
| |||
| <15 | 327 | 64 (19.6) | 3.06 (1.90, 4.94) | |
| 15–30 | 247 | 39 (15.8) | 2.36 (1.40, 3.97) | |
| 31–45 | 367 | 27 (7.4) | 1* | |
| >45 | 319 | 43 (13.5) | 1.96 (1.18, 3.26) | |
|
| 0.060 | |||
| Male | 497 | 57 (11.5) | 1* | |
| Female | 763 | 116 (15.2) | 1.41 (1.00, 1.98) | |
|
| 0.336 | |||
| <500 | 637 | 95 (14.9) | 1.43 (0.89, 2.31) | |
| 500–1000 | 413 | 55 (13.3) | 1.23 (0.74, 2.10) | |
| >1000 | 210 | 23 (10.9) | 1* | |
|
| 0.061 | |||
| >5 | 331 | 33 (10.0) | 1* | |
| 5–7 | 521 | 81 (15.5) | 1.66 (1.08, 2.56) | |
| Above 7 | 408 | 59 (14.5) | 1.09 (0.76, 1.57) | |
|
|
| |||
| Pre-monsoon (Feb-May) | 373 | 41 (11.0) | 1.29 (0.81, 2.059) | |
| Monsoon (Jun-Sep) | 451 | 94 (20.8) | 2.78 (1.84, 4.13) | |
| Post-monsoon (Oct-Jan) | 436 | 38 (8.7) | 1* |
Fig 3Seasonal variation pattern of E. histolytica infection rate from January 2011 to January 2014.
Percentage values are averaged for each month over a period of three years.
Univariate analysis of selected environmental factors and subject’s infection history with prevalence of amoebiasis.
| Variables | No. examined | No. Positive (%) | OR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Yes (Hygienic) | 597 | 61 (10.2) | 1* | |
| No (Unhygienic) | 663 | 112 (16.8) | 1.79 (1.28, 2.49) | |
|
|
| |||
| Tap water | 616 | 64 (10.4) | 1* | |
| Well/ Pond/ River | 388 | 66 (17.0) | 1.78 (1.22, 2.56) | |
| Both | 256 | 43 (16.8) | 1.74 (1.15, 2.64) | |
|
| 0.149 | |||
| Yes | 491 | 76 (15.5) | 1.27 (0.92, 1.75) | |
| No | 769 | 97 (12.6) | 1* | |
|
|
| |||
| Poor | 408 | 86 (21.1) | 3.21 (1.83, 5.63) | |
| Medium | 644 | 71 (11.0) | 1.49 (0.84, 2.62) | |
| Good | 208 | 16 (7.7) | 1* | |
|
| 0.071 | |||
| No | 889 | 112 (12.6) | 1* | |
| Yes | 371 | 61 (16.4) | 1.37 (0.97, 1.92) | |
|
|
| |||
| Yes | 807 | 144 (17.8) | 3.18 (2.09, 4.82) | |
| No | 453 | 29 (6.4) | 1* | |
|
|
| |||
| Yes | 481 | 90 (18.7) | 1.93 (1.40, 2.67) | |
| No | 779 | 83 (10.7) | 1* | |
|
|
| |||
| Yes | 614 | 97 (15.8) | 1.40 (1.02, 1.94) | |
| No | 646 | 76 (11.8) | 1* | |
|
|
| |||
| Yes | 883 | 104 (11.8) | 1* | |
| No | 377 | 69 (18.3) | 1.68 (1.20, 2.33) | |
|
|
| |||
| Yes | 221 | 62 (28.1) | 3.26 (2.29, 4.64) | |
| No | 1039 | 111 (10.7) | 1* | |
|
|
| |||
| Symptomatic | 498 | 85 (17.1) | 1.57 (1.14, 2.18) | |
| Asymptomatic | 762 | 88 (11.5) | 1* |
Fig 4Percentages of misdiagnosis cases associated with conventional diagnostics a) microscopy b) fecal culture.
Eh = E. histolytica, Ed = E. dispar, Em = E. moshkovskii.