Microscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of intestinal parasitic diseases in many countries, including Cuba, although molecular approaches often have higher sensitivity as well as other advantages. Fecal samples from 133 patients were analyzed by light microscopy and also real-time multiplex qPCR targeting Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., and Entamoeba histolytica, and, separately, Dientamoeba fragilis. Microscopy revealed G. duodenalis occurred most commonly (17 patients), followed by Blastocystis spp. (12 patients). In a few patients, Entamoeba histolytica/E. dispar, Cryptosporidium spp., and Cyclospora cayetanensis were identified. Molecular analysis identified 4 more G. duodenalis infections and 2 more Cryptosporidium spp. infections; concordance between microscopy and PCR showed almost perfect agreement for G. duodenalis (κ = 0.88) and substantial agreement for Cryptosporidium (κ = 0.74). PCR indicated that E. dispar, rather than E. histolytica, had been identified by microscopy. Additionally, 16 D. fragilis infections were detected using molecular methods. Although both microscopy and molecular techniques have a place in parasitology diagnostics, for parasites such as D. fragilis, where microscopy can underestimate occurrence, molecular techniques may be preferable, and also essential for distinguishing between morphologically similar microorganisms such as E. histolytica and E. dispar. Although in resource-constrained countries such as Cuba, microscopy is extremely important as a diagnostic tool for intestinal parasites, inclusion of molecular techniques could be invaluable for selected protozoa.
Keywords: Diagnosis; Intestinal protozoa; Microscopy; PCR.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.