Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Feb;49(2):591-6. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01806-10. Epub 2010 Nov 24.
Parasitic infection is uncommon in the United States, but surveys suggest that physicians test when the presence of parasites is unlikely and fail to order appropriate testing when suspicion is high. Numerous studies confirm that immunoassays are more sensitive for Giardia and Cryptosporidium detection, but our experience was that physicians preferentially used ovum and parasite examination (O&P). We conducted a retrospective study of fecal parasite testing at a referral laboratory nationally (1997 to 2006) and during a Cryptosporidium outbreak (Utah, 2007) to correlate physician use of O&P and enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) with the yield of parasites detected. Nationally, of 170,671 episodes, 76.0% (n = 129,732) included O&P, 27.9% (n = 47,666) included Giardia EIA, and 5.7% (n = 9,754) included Cryptosporidium EIA. Most pathogens were Giardia or Cryptosporidium. More episodes were positive when EIA was performed (n = 1,860/54,483 [3.4%]) than when O&P only was performed (n = 1,667/116,188 [1.4%]; P < 0.001), and EIA was more sensitive than O&P. However, more O&P results were positive among patients with both O&P and EIA performed (2.5%) than among those with O&P only performed (1.4%; P < 0.001), suggesting that patients tested by O&P only may have been at lower risk. During the first 10 weeks of the outbreak, physicians also preferentially used O&P over EIA, but no Cryptosporidium cases were detected by O&P. We conclude that clinicians frequently use O&P testing when test performance and epidemiology support the use of immunoassays or no testing. We recommend that stool O&P be limited to patients with negative immunoassay results and persistent symptoms or individuals at increased risk for non-Giardia, non-Cryptosporidium infection. An evidence-based algorithm for the evaluation of patients with suspected intestinal parasitic infection is proposed.
寄生虫感染在美国并不常见,但调查表明,医生在寄生虫不太可能存在的情况下进行检测,而在怀疑寄生虫感染高的情况下,却未能进行适当的检测。许多研究证实,免疫分析对于贾第虫和隐孢子虫的检测更敏感,但我们的经验是,医生更倾向于使用粪便虫卵和寄生虫检查(O&P)。我们对全国性的转诊实验室(1997 年至 2006 年)和犹他州(2007 年)的隐孢子虫暴发期间的粪便寄生虫检测进行了回顾性研究,以将医生使用 O&P 和酶免疫分析(EIA)与检测到的寄生虫的产量相关联。在全国范围内,在 170671 例病例中,76.0%(n = 129732)包括 O&P,27.9%(n = 47666)包括贾第虫 EIA,5.7%(n = 9754)包括隐孢子虫 EIA。大多数病原体是贾第虫或隐孢子虫。当进行 EIA 时,更多的病例呈阳性(n = 1860/54483 [3.4%]),而仅进行 O&P 时,更多的病例呈阳性(n = 1667/116188 [1.4%];P < 0.001),EIA 比 O&P 更敏感。然而,在同时进行 O&P 和 EIA 的患者中,O&P 的结果阳性率更高(2.5%),而仅进行 O&P 的患者中,O&P 的结果阳性率更高(1.4%;P < 0.001),这表明仅通过 O&P 进行检测的患者风险较低。在暴发的前 10 周内,医生也优先使用 O&P 而不是 EIA,但通过 O&P 未检测到隐孢子虫病例。我们得出的结论是,临床医生经常使用 O&P 检测,尽管检测性能和流行病学支持使用免疫分析或不进行检测。我们建议将粪便 O&P 仅限于免疫检测结果阴性且持续存在症状的患者,或感染非贾第虫、非隐孢子虫的风险增加的个体。提出了一种用于评估疑似肠道寄生虫感染患者的基于证据的算法。