RESUMO
Liver abscess is one of the conditions having multiple etiological agents. It can be parasitic or can be due to bacterial among other causes. Entamoeba histolytica is one of the common protozoan parasites causing amoebic liver abscess. So, accurate diagnosis is important for proper management and treatment. We have tried to detect the various bacterial etiological agents along with Entamoeba histolytica using culture of bacteria and polymerase chain reaction for E. histolytica in suspected liver abscess cases. Liver aspirates/pus collected from 63 patients were subjected to bacterial gram staining and culture along with wet mount and PCR for E. histolytica. Patients' clinical details and outcomes were also noted and co-related.It was seen that 22 (34.9%) out of 63 samples showed the presence of bacteria by gram staining whereas aerobic bacterial growth was seen in 28.6% and only 1.6% in anaerobic culture. Amoebic liver abscess showed E. histolytica in 36 patients out of 63 study participants (57.1%) by PCR. The study showed that 44.4% of patients had a habit of alcohol consumption and 19.1% were chronic smokers. Abdominal pain (90.3%) was the most common presenting feature followed by fever (64.5%). The most common co-morbidities in the enrolled patients was diabetes mellitus (19.3%) and least with chronic liver disease (3.2%). Liver abscess, a multi-etiological condition needs a robust diagnostic method. Just a single method or a single sample type is not sufficient to diagnose, as it may miss out other causes. Treating its associated co-morbidities may help to lessen it.
RESUMO
Malaria is one of most important parasitic disease, which is still much prevalent in India. The burden of malaria in India is complex and the proportions of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum vary across India, because of the highly variable malaria eco-epidemiological profiles, transmission factors, and the presence of multiple Plasmodium species and Anopheles vectors. The diagnostic modalities which were being used currently, are at the risk of missing potential malaria cases, if a single test is being used for a given sample. There are some extremely sensitive and specific diagnostic methods available (e.g. PCR, LAMP), but they are expensive, complex, and not readily available in all healthcare setups. Therefore, this study aimed to compare three different types of routinely used diagnostic methods and a novel testing method, the Parasight™ platform, and compare them with the detection ability of the most accurate diagnostic method, that is, PCR. A total of 111 consecutive malaria-positive (proven positive by PCR) patients were taken and tested by the immunochromatographic test or the rapid diagnostic test (RDT), thin and thick blood smears, quantitative buffy coat (QBC). In the last year of study period, 26 PCR positive samples were also taken up for the Parasight™ platform diagnostic test, along with the other routine tests. Among 111 PCR-positive cases, 78.4% samples were positive by Giemsa-stained blood film examination, 80.2% by QBC, 87.4% by RDT. In the last year of study period, among the 26 PCR-positive malaria samples, 80.8% were positive by blood film examination, 84.6% by QBC, 96.2% by RDT and 100% by the Parasight™ platform test. A combination of tests is preferable than a single method, for better detection of Plasmodium species including automated methods. The new testing method, the Parasight™ platform, is emerging to be a very sensitive test for detection of Plasmodium spp., results of which are comparable to PCR.