Evaluation of the BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel for the detection of Cryptosporidium parvum/hominis, Giardia duodenalis and Entamoeba histolytica

Perry, M. D.; Corden, Sally; White, P. Lewis

doi:10.1099/jmm.0.000558

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it can be stated that the G-DiaPara TM assay performed better than the RIDA ® GENE assay for Giardia detection, using our extraction technique. The BD Max TM system yielded results in agreement with the 93.5%–100% sensitivity observed in the literature [ 14 , 17 , 18 ]. Interestingly, one sample was negative by microscopy and positive with the three assays.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Comparison of three commercial multiplex PCR assays for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although microscopic examination of stool samples remains the reference method for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoal infections, these techniques are time-consuming and require operators who are experienced and well trained. Molecular biology seems to offer performances at least equivalent in terms of sensitivity and specificity for certain parasites. This study aimed to compare three multiplex PCR assays on 93 prospectively collected positive stools (prospective cohort) and a panel of 12 more Cryptosporidium-positive samples (Cryptosporidium panel). On the prospective cohort, the sensitivity was 89%, 64% and 41% for Giardia sp. detection for BD MaxTM, G-DiaParaTM and RIDA®GENE, respectively and 75%, 100% and 100% for C. parvum/hominis detection. The sensitivity of the RIDA®GENE assay for all Cryptosporidium species was 100%, and for D. fragilis 71%. All the techniques obtained the same results for E. histolytica detection, with one positive sample. All species in the Cryptosporidium panel were identified by the RIDA®GENE PCR. The BD MaxTM and G-DiaParaTM assays detected only C. parvum/hominis with the exception of one positive sample for C. meleagridis. No assay showed satisfactory results for all parasites simultaneously, and the DNA extraction seems to be the critical step. More studies are needed to standardize this procedure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Comparison of three commercial multiplex PCR assays for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparison of two real-time PCR, conventional PCR, and nested PCR results Dientamoeba fragilis.ventional and nested PCRs. Many studies from outside of Asia have already approved the detection ability of EPP to be highly sensitive and speci c[10,13,14]. In this study, EPP effectively detected E. histolytica (sample No.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Detection of Intestinal Protozoa in Korean Patients Using BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel and Seegene Allplex Gastrointestinal Parasite Assay

Kim

Kim²,

Kim

et al. 2020

Lab Med Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intestinal protozoan infection is one of the main causes of gastrointestinal diseases. Protozoa are usually detected by direct smear microscopy, concentration techniques, or special stains; however, these techniques are labor-intensive and require well-trained technicians. Therefore, molecular techniques involving polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have been developed to satisfy the need for unbiased and rapid analytical methods with high sensitivity and specificity. In this study, the BD MAX TM Enteric Parasite Panel (EPP) (Becton, Dickinson and Company, USA), designed to detect Cryptosporidium parvum and/or hominis, Giardia lamblia, and Entamoeba histolytica, and the Allplex TM Gastrointestinal Parasite Assays (AGPA) (Seegene Inc., Korea), designed to detect Cryptosporidium species, G. lamblia, E. histolytica, Blastocystis hominis, Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis were compared to determine whether any of these assays could become a useful tool for detecting intestinal protozoan infections in Korea. Methods: We investigated 295 fecal samples using EPP and AGPA. Then we confirmed the positive results with the conventional and nested PCR. Consistent detection by conventional PCR, nested PCR, and one of the multiplex panels was considered "true positive." Results: Out of 295 samples, 17 were true positives for B. hominis and 2 were true positives for E. histolytica. EPP detected parasites in only two samples owing to its design; however, its true positive detection rate was 100% (2/2). AGPA detected parasites in 24 samples with 79.2% (19/24) true positives. Conclusions: The incidence of protozoan, especially B. hominis, infection may be more prevalent than expected. AGPA could be an effective tool for screening protozoan infections.

show abstract

“…In contrast, diagnosis of intestinal protozoa was based on microscopy, supplemented with an RDT and PCR. While the BD Max™ PCR assay for intestinal protozoa has been validated in non-endemic settings [16,17], this study is—to our knowledge—the first to assess this molecular test on stool samples originating from West Africa. Eight G. intestinalis infections were exclusively detected on PCR, thus confirming the added value of molecular diagnostic tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Giardia intestinalis Infection in Schistosomiasis-Endemic Areas in South-Central Mali

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intestinal parasite infections are frequent causes of diarrhea and malnutrition among children in the tropics. Transmission of helminths and intestinal protozoa is intimately connected with conditions of poverty, including inadequate sanitation and hygiene. Concurrent infections with several intestinal pathogens may lead to excess morbidity. Yet, there is a paucity of epidemiological data from Mali. In this study, stool samples from 56 individuals, aged 2–63 years, from Bamako and Niono, south-central Mali were examined for intestinal parasites using stool microscopy. Additionally, stool samples were subjected to a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia intestinalis. The predominant pathogens were Schistosoma mansoni and G. intestinalis with prevalences of 41% and 38%, respectively. Hymenolepis nana was detected in 4% of the participants, while no eggs of soil-transmitted helminths were found. Concurrent infections with G. intestinalis and S. mansoni were diagnosed in 16% of the participants. For the detection of G. intestinalis, PCR was more sensitive (100%) than RDT (62%) and microscopy (48%). As helminth-protozoa coinfections might have important implications for morbidity control programs, future studies should employ diagnostic tools beyond stool microscopy to accurately assess the co-endemicity of giardiasis and schistosomiasis.

show abstract

Evaluation of the BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel for the detection of Cryptosporidium parvum/hominis, Giardia duodenalis and Entamoeba histolytica

Cited by 12 publications

References 37 publications

Comparison of three commercial multiplex PCR assays for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa

Comparison of three commercial multiplex PCR assays for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa

Detection of Intestinal Protozoa in Korean Patients Using BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel and Seegene Allplex Gastrointestinal Parasite Assay

Prevalence of Giardia intestinalis Infection in Schistosomiasis-Endemic Areas in South-Central Mali

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About