Autor(es): P?voa, Marinete Marins ; Arruda, Jos? Eduardo Gomes ; Silva, M?nica Cristina de Moraes ; Bichara, Cl?a Nazar? Carneiro ; Esteves, Paulo ; Gabbay, Yvone Benchimol ; Machado, Ricardo Luiz Dantas
Data: 2021
Origem: Oasisbr
Assunto(s): Ameb?ase; Entamoeba histolytica / patogenicidade; Ensaio de Imunoadsor??o Enzim?tica / m?todos
Instituto Evandro Chagas/ Funda??o Nacional de Sa?de/Minist?rio da Sa?de e Programa Interinstitucional de Bolsa de Inicia??o Cient?fica/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico/Instituto Evandro Chagas
Minist?rio da Sa?de. Funda??o Nacional de Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Laborat?rio de Enteroparasitoses. Bel?m, PA, Brasil.
Minist?rio da Sa?de. Funda??o Nacional de Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Laborat?rio de Enteroparasitoses. Bel?m, PA, Brasil.
Minist?rio da Sa?de. Funda??o Nacional de Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Laborat?rio de Enteroparasitoses. Bel?m, PA, Brasil / Centro de Ensino Superior do Par?. Bel?m, PA , Brasil.
Minist?rio da Sa?de. Funda??o Nacional de Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Laborat?rio de Enteroparasitoses. Bel?m, PA, Brasil.
Hospital da Pol?cia Militar de Bel?m. Bel?m, PA, Brasil.
Minist?rio da Sa?de. Funda??o Nacional de Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Bel?m, PA, Brasil.
Minist?rio da Sa?de. Funda??o Nacional de Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Laborat?rio de Enteroparasitoses. Bel?m, PA, Brasil.
We compare diagnostic methods for Entamoeba histolytica in fecal samples from the city of Bel?m, Par?, 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.
