Laboratory diagnosis of amebiasis in a sample of students from southeastern Brazil and a comparison of microscopy with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for screening of infections with Entamoeba sp.

• Published in: Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
• Main Authors: Valeriana Valadares Pereira, Abiqueila da Silva Conceição, Leandro Henrique Silva Maximiano, Leonardo de Queiroz Gomes Belligoli, Eduardo Sergio da Silva
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT) 2014
• Subjects: Entamoeba histolytica; Entamoeba dispar; Microscopy; ELISA; Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0214-2013; https://doaj.org/article/3b24ba01faf341238dde777ffe724353

Introduction: Epidemiological studies on amebiasis have been reassessed since Entamoeba histolytica and E. dispar were first recognized as distinct species. Because the morphological similarity of these species renders microscopic diagnosis unreliable, additional tools are required to discriminate between Entamoeba species. The objectives of our study were to compare microscopy with ELISA kit (IVD®) results, to diagnose E. histolytica infection, and to determine the prevalence of amebiasis in a sample of students from southeastern Brazil. Methods: In this study, diagnosis was based on microscopy due to its capacity for revealing potential cysts/trophozoites and on two commercial kits for antigen detection in stool samples. Results: For 1,403 samples collected from students aged 6 to 14 years who were living in Divinópolis, Minas Gerais, Brazil, microscopy underestimated the number of individuals infected with E. histolytica/E. dispar (5.7% prevalence) compared with the ELISA kit (IVD®)-based diagnoses (15.7% for E. histolytica/E. dispar). A comparison of the ELISA (IVD®) and light microscopy results returned a 20% sensitivity, 97% specificity, low positive predictive value, and high negative predictive value for microscopy. An ELISA kit (TechLab®) that was specific for E. histolytica detected a 3.1% (43/1403) prevalence for E. histolytica infection. Conclusions: The ELISA kit (IVD®) can be used as an alternative screening tool. The high prevalence of E. histolytica infection detected in this study warrants the implementation of actions directed toward health promotion and preventive measures.