| Literature DB >> 31074405 |
Daniel A Zárate-Rendón1, Johnny Vlaminck2, Bruno Levecke2, Andrea Briones-Montero1, Peter Geldhof2.
Abstract
We compared the diagnostic performance of the standard method (Kato-Katz) with two recently developed methods (Mini-FLOTAC and Flukefinder) for the detection and quantification of Fasciola hepatica eggs in human stool. Uninfected human stool samples were artificially spiked with F. hepatica eggs to reach final concentrations of 14, 28, 41, or 96 eggs per gram of stool (epg). Only Flukefinder showed 100% sensitivity in all but the samples with the lowest concentration of eggs (14 epg), in which it had a sensitivity of 60%. Each of the methods underestimated the true fecal egg counts (FECs), Flukefinder resulting in the most biased egg counts (egg counts 0.18 times lower than the expected FECs). Only the Flukefinder resulted in more precise results (coefficient of variance < 30%) from FECs of 96 epg onward. The outcome of this study indicates that the Flukefinder is a useful alternative diagnostic method for human fascioliasis in stool.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31074405 PMCID: PMC6609204 DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0988
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg ISSN: 0002-9637 Impact factor: 2.345
The results of the spiking experiment using the Kato-Katz thick smear, Mini-FLOTAC, and Flukefinder on the samples artificially spiked with 14, 28, 41, or 96 Fasciola hepatica eggs per gram (epg)
| Method | Replicate | Concentration of | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 28 | 41 | 96 | ||
| Kato-Katz | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 72 |
| 2 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 120 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 4 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | |
| 6 | 0 | 24 | 48 | 168 | |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 72 | |
| 8 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 24 | |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 10.0 | 40.0 | 10.0 | 70.0 | |
| Mean + SD | 2.4 + 7.6 | 12 + 17.0 | 4.8 + 15.2 | 52.8 + 56.3 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 17.1 | 42.9 | 11.7 | 55.0 | |
| CV (%) | 44.3 | 39.6 | 129.7 | 102.4 | |
| Mini-FLOTAC | 1 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 30 |
| 2 | 10 | 20 | 0 | 30 | |
| 3 | 0 | 20 | 10 | 30 | |
| 4 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 20 | |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 10 | |
| 6 | 10 | 0 | 20 | 30 | |
| 7 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 30 | |
| 8 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 20 | |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 20 | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 40.0 | 60.0 | 70.0 | 100 | |
| Mean + SD | 5 ± 7.1 | 9 ± 8.8 | 14 ± 11.7 | 23 ± 8.2 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 35.7 | 32.1 | 34.1 | 24.9 | |
| CV (%) | 19.8 | 27.2 | 34.4 | 34.3 | |
| Flukefinder | 1 | 1 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 29.5 |
| 2 | 0.5 | 9.5 | 1.5 | 28 | |
| 3 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 23 | |
| 4 | 1.5 | 6 | 5 | 32 | |
| 5 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 42.5 | |
| 6 | 1 | 11 | 2.5 | 30.5 | |
| 7 | 0.5 | 7.5 | 0.5 | 46 | |
| 8 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 24.5 | |
| 9 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 6 | 30 | |
| 10 | 0 | 17.5 | 6 | 37 | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 60.0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Mean + SD | 0.6 ± 0.6 | 7.95 ± 4.0 | 3.7 ± 1.9 | 32.3 ± 7.4 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 4.3 | 28.4 | 9.0 | 33.6 | |
| CV (%) | 14.3 | 14.0 | 21.6 | 22.1 | |
CV = coefficient of variance; FEC = fecal egg count. Ten FEC replicates were performed for each method and the results are shown in epg. The accuracy equals the ratio observed over the expected FECs. CV = mean/SD.