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

• Autor(a) principal: Póvoa, Marinete Marins
• Data de Publicação: 2000
• Outros Autores: Arruda, José Eduardo Gomes, Silva, Mônica Cristina de Moraes, Bichara, Cléa Nazaré Carneiro, Esteves, Paulo, Gabbay, Yvone Benchimol, Machado, Ricardo Luiz Dantas
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Cadernos de Saúde Pública
• Texto Completo: https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/1373
• topic: Entamoeba histolytica; Amebíase; Diagnóstico; ELISA

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.