Diagnóstico de amebíase intestinal utilizando métodos coproscópicos e imunológicos em amostra da população da área metropolitana de Belém, Pará, Brasil

Cadernos de Saúde Pública

Marinete Marins Póvoa²  José Eduardo Gomes Arruda²  Mônica Cristina De Moraes Silva²  Cléa Nazaré Carneiro Bichara²  Paulo Esteves¹  Yvone Benchimol Gabbay¹  Ricardo Luiz Dantas Machado² 

[1] ,Instituto Evandro Chagas Serviço de Parasitologia Laboratório de EnteroparasitosesBelém PA ,Brasil

关键词: Entamoeba histolytica;    Amebiasis;    Diagnosis;    Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay;    Entamoeba histolytica;    Amebíase;    Diagnóstico;    ELISA;   

DOI  :  10.1590/S0102-311X2000000300032

来源: SciELO

【 摘 要 】

We compare diagnostic methods for Entamoeba histolytica in fecal samples from the city of Belém, Pará, Brazil. We analyze stool samples from children and adults (Group I); stool and serum samples from adults (Group II); and stool samples from children (Group III). In groups I and III, we used direct examination with lugol (DM), Faust et al (FM), and ELISA (detection of E. histolytica anti-GIAP coproantigen) and in group II, DM, iron hematoxylin staining (IHS), FM, ELISA, and the indirect immunofluorescence test (IFAT) for detection of IgG antibodies. Positivity was 10.50% by DM plus FM and 28.99% by ELISA. There was no correlation between positivity and age group. In Group II (n = 87), the positive rate was 4.59% by DM plus FM, 8.04% by IHS, 4.59% by IFAT, and 21.83% by ELISA. The ELISA test was the most sensitive for all groups. IFAT alone is still not a useful tool for diagnosis of E. histolytica infection. The ELISA test is simple, performed in one-third of cases used for IHS and IFAT, and greatly improves quality of diagnosis. We recommend this as the method of choice for diagnosis of suspected E. histolytica infection.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
 All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License