| Literature DB >> 28114314 |
Lynn Meurs1,2, Anton M Polderman1, Natalie V S Vinkeles Melchers1, Eric A T Brienen1, Jaco J Verweij1, Bernhard Groosjohan3, Felisberto Mendes3, Manito Mechendura3, Dagmar H Hepp1, Marijke C C Langenberg1, Rosanne Edelenbosch1, Katja Polman2, Lisette van Lieshout1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many different intestinal parasite species can co-occur in the same population. However, classic diagnostic tools can only frame a particular group of intestinal parasite species. Hence, one or two tests do not suffice to provide a complete picture of infecting parasite species in a given population. The present study investigated intestinal parasitic infections in Beira, Mozambique, i.e. in the informal settlement of Inhamudima. Diagnostic accuracy of five classical microscopy techniques and real-time PCR for the detection of a broad spectrum of parasites was compared. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28114314 PMCID: PMC5289637 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Flow diagram of the selection of the study population and diagnostic procedures.
Diagnostic methods performed and definitions of composite reference standards.
| Parasite species | Direct smear | FEC | Kato smear | Baermann | Coproculture | PCR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STHs | + | + | - | + | + | + | |
| + | + | + | - | + | + | ||
| + | + | + | - | - | + | ||
| + | + | + | - | - | - | ||
| + | + | + | - | - | + | ||
| Pathogenic protozoa | + | + | - | - | - | + | |
| + | + | - | - | - | + | ||
| - | - | - | - | - | + | ||
| - | - | - | - | - | + | ||
| - | - | - | - | - | + | ||
| + | + | - | - | - | - | ||
| - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Non-pathogenic protozoa | + | + | - | - | - | - | |
| + | + | - | - | - | - | ||
| + | + | - | - | - | - | ||
| + | + | - | - | - | - | ||
| + | + | - | - | - | - | ||
| + | + | - | - | - | - | ||
| - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
FEC, formal-ether concentration
For each parasite species, the composite reference standard (CRS) is based on the combined findings of the test(s) indicated with a plus sign (+). The minus sign (-) indicates the tests that were not applicable for a given parasite species. The latter tests were not included in the respective CRSs.
a In contrast to the microscopic techniques, the PCR differentiates between the hookworm species Ancylostoma spp. and Necator americanus.
b In addition to the microscopic methods mentioned, glycerin sedimentation was carried out [17]. However, this was stopped after the first 100 samples because it was very labor-intensive and did not detect any additional S. mansoni cases.
c The time interval between preparation of the Kato smear and the examination of the slides was 30–60 minutes and therefore suboptimal for the detection of S. mansoni.
d The PCR detects DNA of both S. mansoni and S. haematobium.
e Entamoeba histolytica cannot be differentiated microscopically from E. dispar and the other Entamoeba spp. of the E. histolytica complex: E. bangladeshi, E. ecuadoriensis, E. moshkovskii, and E. nutalli [24–26]. The PCR was specific for E. histolytica. Consequently, this parasite was not included in the analysis on diagnostic accuracy.
f The microscopic methods used—direct smear and FEC—are known to be inadequate for these protozoan infections. Hence, the modified Ziehl-Neelsen staining [17] was performed but stopped after the first 201 samples because it was labor-intensive and Cryptosporidium was detected in three samples only, while C. belli and C. cayetanensis were absent in this subsample. Because of incompleteness the modified Ziehl-Neelsen staining, data was not included in the CRS.
g These protozoa cannot be detected by any of the microscopic techniques used on all samples, and were therefore not included in the analysis on diagnostic accuracy.
h As yet, the classification of Blastocystis and D. fragilis as pathogenic or non-pathogenic species remains controversial [27;28].
Fig 2Prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections in the study population according to different diagnostic methods.
Whiskers indicate 95% confidence intervals of the observed prevalence. Percentages are based on observations in 303 individuals. (A) Prevalence of helminth infections. Strongyloides stercoralis infection was not determined (ND) in Kato smears, hookworm was not determined by the Baermann method, while A. lumbricoides, T. trichiura, and S. mansoni were not determined by the Baermann method or coproculture. Trichuris trichiura was not determined by PCR either, and the composite reference standard (CRS) for this infection was consequently based on microscopic results only. (B) Prevalence of intestinal protozoan infections. Feces were examined by both microscopy and PCR for G. intestinalis, and E. histolytica complex spp. (one observation was missing for PCR, and consequently for the CRS). Only PCR data was used for C. parvum/C. hominis (one observation missing) and for, E. bieneusi and Encephalitozoon spp. (two observations missing).* While microscopy cannot differentiate between the pathogenic species Entamoeba histolytica and the nonpathogenic species of the E. histolytica complex, PCR is specific for the pathogenic species (E. histolytica).
Fig 3Number of helminth species found per person.
Prevalence of infection is based on the composite reference standard for S. stercoralis, A. lumbricoides, T. trichiura, and S. mansoni, and on PCR for hookworm—Ancylostoma spp. and N. americanus (n = 303).
Fig 4Sensitivities of the different diagnostic methods for the detection of intestinal parasitic infections.
Whiskers indicate 95% confidence intervals of observed sensitivities (n = 303). Strongyloides stercoralis infection was not determined (ND) in Kato smears, hookworm was not determined by the Baermann method, while A. lumbricoides, T. trichiura, and S. mansoni were not determined by the Baermann method or coproculture. Trichuris trichiura was not determined by PCR, and for this species the sensitivity was therefore based on microscopic results only. Giardia intestinalis was not determined by Kato smear, the Baermann method or coproculture (one observation missing).
Fig 5Ct values in PCR-positives: microscopy-negative versus -positive samples.
Total number of PCR-positives per species is indicated between brackets. ‘-’ indicates microscopy-negative and ‘+’ microscopy-positive samples. Horizontal lines indicate median Ct values. Differences in Ct values between microscopy-positive and–negative samples were all significant p≤0.007, a microscopy cannot differentiate the two hookworm species.
Discordance between microscopy and PCR in microscopy-positives.
| Parasite species | Number of microscopy-positive cases being PCR-negative (number of parasites observed per technique) | Total number of microscopy-positives | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct smear | FEC | Kato smear | Baermann | Coproculture | Total | ||
| 1 (1) | 0 | NA | 7 | 5 (6–141) | 12 | 100 | |
| Hookworm | 0 | 1 (2) | 3 (1–47) | NA | 7 (2–1000) | 9 | 98 |
| 2 (1) | 5 (1–4) | 0 | NA | NA | 7 | 161 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | NA | NA | 1 | 5 | |
| 0 | 1 (1–10) | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 24 | |
FEC, Formal-ether concentration; NA, Not applicable
a One case was detected by coproculture as well as the Baermann method. In addition to stool, Baermann medium and coproculture medium were analyzed by PCR in the 7 Baermann-positives and 3/5 coproculture-positives, respectively. These samples also tested negative.
b One case was detected by FEC, Kato smear as well as coproculture.
c In addition, 3 S. haematobium eggs were observed
d Parasite numbers were determined semi-quantitatively.