Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T21:33:38.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ascaris lumbricoides eggs or artefacts? A diagnostic conundrum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2021

M. P. Maurelli*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, WHO Collaborating Centre ITA-116, Naples, Italy
L. C. Alves
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
C. S. Aggarwal
Affiliation:
Division of Parasitic Diseases, National Centre for Disease Control, 22 Shamnath Marg, Delhi, India
P. Cociancic
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, WHO Collaborating Centre ITA-116, Naples, Italy Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores (CEPAVE-CONICET-UNLP-asociado a CICPBA), La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
B. Levecke
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, WHO Collaborating Centre BEL-42, Merelbeke, Belgium
P. Cools
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, WHO Collaborating Centre BEL-42, Merelbeke, Belgium
A. Montresor
Affiliation:
Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
D. Ianniello
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, WHO Collaborating Centre ITA-116, Naples, Italy
L. Gualdieri
Affiliation:
Medical Center, Centro per la Tutela della Salute degli Immigrati, Naples, Italy
G. Cringoli
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, WHO Collaborating Centre ITA-116, Naples, Italy
L. Rinaldi
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, WHO Collaborating Centre ITA-116, Naples, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: M. P. Maurelli, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Due to the presence of artefacts in stool samples, the copromicroscopic diagnosis of Ascaris lumbricoides is not always straightforward, particularly in the case of fertilized decorticated eggs. A total of 286 stool samples from 115 schoolchildren in India and 171 adult immigrants in Italy were screened for the presence of A. lumbricoides eggs by both Kato-Katz thick smear and Mini-FLOTAC. If the outer layer of A. lumbricoides eggs was absent, two aliquots of each stool sample were preserved: one for coproculture to identify larvae after development and one to compose a pool of stool for molecular analysis. A total of 64 stool samples (22.4%) were positive for A. lumbricoides using the Kato-Katz thick smear; 36 (56.3%) of these showed mammillated A. lumbricoides eggs, 25 (39.1%) showed elements resembling fertilized decorticated eggs, while three samples (4.7%) showed both mammillated and decorticated eggs. By Mini-FLOTAC, 39 stool samples (13.6%) were positive, while decorticated A. lumbricoides-like eggs were identified as artefacts. These results were confirmed by negative coprocultures and quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Mini-FLOTAC can be used for a reliable diagnosis of A. lumbricoides, thanks to the flotation and translation features which allow a clearer view, resulting in the correct identification of A. lumbricoides eggs.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Ascaris lumbricoides infects about 820 million people and is prevalent in at least 103 of the 218 countries of the world (WHO, 2017, 2020). In general, preschool-age and school-age children are at higher risk of infection, because they are more likely to ingest soil, food or water contaminated with infectious stages (egg with 3rd stage larva) (Jourdan et al., Reference Jourdan, Lamberton, Fenwick and Addiss2018). Diagnosis of A. lumbricoides infections is based on the microscopic detection of eggs in stool. However, the morphological identification of A. lumbricoides eggs by stool microscopy is not always straightforward and requires specially trained laboratory personnel (Montresor et al., Reference Montresor, Mupfasoni, Mikhailov, Mwinzi, Lucianez, Jamsheed, Gasimov, Warusavithana, Yajima, Bisoffi, Buonfrate, Steinmann, Utzinger, Levecke, Vlaminck, Cools, Vercruysse, Cringoli, Rinaldi, Blouin and Gyorkos2020). Interestingly, A. lumbricoides eggs may appear in three different forms: unfertilized, fertilized corticated and fertilized decorticated (WHO, 2019). Unfertilized eggs are elongated and larger than fertile eggs (~90 μm in length), their shell is thinner and the mammillated layer is more variable, either with large protuberances or practically none (Fig. 1A) (WHO, 2019). Fertilized corticated eggs are round-shaped, 45–75 μm in diameter (Fig. 1B) and have a thick shell with an external mammillated layer (indicated in Fig. 1B with a green line). In some cases, the outer layer is absent (fertilized decorticated eggs) (Fig. 1C). Due to this polymorphism, non-parasitic elements (artefacts) can be sometimes misidentified as A. lumbricoides eggs (Colmer-Hamood, Reference Colmer-Hamood2001; Ash and Orihel, Reference Ash and Orihel2007; Speich et al., Reference Speich, Ali, Ame, Albonico, Utzinger and Keiser2015; WHO, 2016; Benjamin-Chung et al., Reference Benjamin-Chung, Pilotte, Ercumen, Grant, Maasch, Gonzalez, Ester, Arnold, Rahman, Haque, Hubbard, Luby, Williams and Colford2020). Identification of artefacts (e.g. pollen, plant cells, psocid insects, etc.) is an integral part of the diagnosis process to avoid common misdiagnosis in the laboratory (Podhorsky, Reference Podhorsky2011; Szwabe and Kurnatowski, Reference Szwabe and Kurnatowski2012; Lanocha et al., Reference Lanocha, Zdziarska, Lanocha-Arendarczyk, Kosik-Bogacka, Guzicka-Kazimierczak and Marzec-Lewenstein2016). In order to distinguish between parasitic and non-parasitic elements, technicians should be well trained and experienced on the complex characteristics of parasite eggs (e.g. size, shape, shell structure and internal features in the case of A. lumbricoides eggs) (Colmer-Hamood, Reference Colmer-Hamood2001; Ash and Orihel, Reference Ash and Orihel2007; Garcia, Reference Garcia2007; Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Arrowood, Kokoskin, Paltridge, Pillai, Procop, Ryan, Shimizu and Visvesvara2018; WHO, 2019).

Fig. 1. Unfertilized (A), fertilized mammillated (B) and fertilized decorticated (C) eggs of Ascaris lumbricoides. Mammillated layer is indicated with a green line.

To date, there are a variety of laboratory methods used to detect A. lumbricoides, but some are more prone to misdiagnosis than others. For example, when applying methods based on a stool smear (e.g. Kato-Katz thick smear and direct smear), the microscopic view is often troubled by debris, increasing the risk of misclassification of artefacts as A. lumbricoides (Speich et al., Reference Speich, Ali, Ame, Albonico, Utzinger and Keiser2015). This is in contrast to flotation-based methods (e.g. (Mini-)FLOTAC, McMaster and FECPAKG2), where the microscopic view is clear by allowing eggs to float to the surface of the device (debris will not float and will be separated from the eggs) (Barda et al., Reference Barda, Cajal, Villagran, Cimino, Juarez, Krolewiecki, Rinaldi, Cringoli, Burioni and Albonico2014; Cringoli et al., Reference Cringoli, Maurelli, Levecke, Bosco, Vercruysse, Utzinger and Rinaldi2017; Ayana et al., Reference Ayana, Cools, Mekonnen, Biruksew, Dana, Rashwan, Prichard, Vlaminck, Verweij and Levecke2019). The Mini-FLOTAC technique (Cringoli et al., Reference Cringoli, Maurelli, Levecke, Bosco, Vercruysse, Utzinger and Rinaldi2017) has proven to be a reliable method for diagnosis of A. lumbricoides and other soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) (Barda et al., Reference Barda, Cajal, Villagran, Cimino, Juarez, Krolewiecki, Rinaldi, Cringoli, Burioni and Albonico2014; Benjamin-Chung et al., Reference Benjamin-Chung, Nazneen, Halder, Haque, Siddique, Uddin, Koporc, Arnold, Hubbard, Unicomb, Luby, Addiss and Colford2015; Lamberton and Jourdan, Reference Lamberton and Jourdan2015; Lim et al., Reference Lim, Brooker, Belizario, Gay-Andrieu, Gilleard, Levecke, van Lieshout, Medley, Mekonnen, Mirams, Njenga, Odiere, Rudge, Stuyver, Vercruysse, Vlaminck and Walson2018; Dukpa et al., Reference Dukpa, Dorji, Thinley, Wangchuk, Tshering, Gyem, Wangmo, Sherpa, Dorji and Montresor2020). Comparisons performed between Mini-FLOTAC technique and Kato-Katz thick smear showed a higher specificity of the first method (Assefa et al., Reference Assefa, Crellen, Kepha, Kihara, Njenga, Pullan and Brooker2014) and a similar sensitivity (Assefa et al., Reference Assefa, Crellen, Kepha, Kihara, Njenga, Pullan and Brooker2014; Barda et al., Reference Barda, Cajal, Villagran, Cimino, Juarez, Krolewiecki, Rinaldi, Cringoli, Burioni and Albonico2014, Reference Barda, Albonico, Ianniello, Ame, Keiser, Speich, Rinaldi, Cringoli, Burioni, Montresor and Utzinger2015; Nikolay et al., Reference Nikolay, Brooker and Pullan2014) with Kato-Katz direct smear. This paper describes the findings of either A. lumbricoides eggs or artefacts in stool samples from two cohorts analysed by both the Kato-Katz thick smear and Mini-FLOTAC, using additional methods (i.e. coprocultures and molecular techniques) to validate microscopical identification of A. lumbricoides.

Materials and methods

Stool samples (n = 286) used for this study were obtained from (i) a survey conducted in November 2019 in 115 schoolchildren (6–10 years old) at a primary school in Delhi, India and (ii) a survey conducted in November 2020 in 171 adult (>18 years) immigrants in Naples, Italy. These immigrants were mainly from Bangladesh, Pakistan and western and southern Africa. The stool samples were analysed by applying both Kato-Katz thick smear and Mini-FLOTAC (Fig. 2). The Kato-Katz was performed using the 41.7 mg template, after filtration of stool samples. A piece of cellophane (which has been soaked overnight in glycerol malachite green solution) was placed over the stool sample for 1 h before reading. For the Mini-FLOTAC, 2 g of stool were placed in the Fill-FLOTAC and then diluted and homogenized with 38 mL of zinc sulphate flotation solution (specific gravity = 1.35; dilution ratio 1:20). After a careful homogenization (by pumping the conical collector of the Fill-FLOTAC up and down ten times, while turning to the right and left), Mini-FLOTAC chambers were filled and translated after 10 min. The standard operating procedures described in the WHO Bench Aids for the diagnosis of intestinal parasites were used for both techniques (WHO, 2019). Ascaris lumbricoides eggs were identified according to the WHO guidelines (which describe their characteristics to recognize them) (WHO, 2012, 2017), photographed and measured using a light microscope (Leica DM 1000, Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany) and LAS ver. 4.13 software (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany), at 20× and 40× magnifications. In order to ensure the quality of parasitological examination, the operator that prepared samples to analyse provided randomized Kato-Katz thick smears and Mini-FLOTACs to the reader to obtain blinded results, without influences on comparison between the two techniques. Moreover, to avoid possible bias in reading (i.e. misdiagnosis), all slides were analysed by an experienced microscopist on eggs recognizing.

Fig. 2. Study design.

The prevalence and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of A. lumbricoides eggs and artefacts was calculated for both populations (i.e. from Indian children and from immigrants in Italy) using free online software ‘Sample Size Calculator’ (Creative Research Systems, CA, USA). The non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the difference in eggs per gram of faeces detected by the two methods (Mini-FLOTAC and Kato-Katz) using SPSS Statistics v.23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The test was considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.

If the outer layer of A. lumbricoides eggs was absent, two aliquots of each stool sample were preserved for further analysis as follows: one at +4°C for coprocultures and another at −20°C for molecular analysis. For the coprocultures, an aliquot of each sample was diluted in tap water and the suspension was filtered through a wire mesh (aperture of 250 μm). The suspension obtained was centrifuged at 170 × g for 3 min. The sediment containing the eggs was cultured in culture flasks at +25°C for 20 days (WHO, 2004; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Pyo, Hwang, Park, Hwang, Chai and Shin2012). Then, the samples were analysed under a microscope, to evaluate the presence of developed larvae inside the eggs.

For molecular analysis, two pooled stool samples (one from Indian samples and one from immigrants in Italy) were prepared taking 0.5 g of faeces from each sample only with dubious fertilized decorticated A. lumbricoides eggs (15 samples for the pool of Indian children's stools and 10 samples for the pool of immigrants' stools), then after a careful homogenization, 0.25 g of faeces were used for DNA extraction by the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was performed as described by Cools et al. (Reference Cools, Vlaminck, Albonico, Ame, Ayana, José Antonio, Cringoli, Dana, Keiser, Maurelli, Maya, Matoso, Montresor, Mekonnen, Mirams, Corrêa-Oliveira, Pinto, Rinaldi, Sayasone, Thomas, Verweij, Vercruysse and Levecke2019) with minor modifications. The reactions were performed in a final reaction mixture of 20 μL, containing 10 μL of FastStart PCR Master Mix (Roche, Rotkreuz, Switzerland), 1.2 μL of both forward and reverse primers (both at 10 μ m), 0.95 μL of probe (10 μ m) and 5 μL of DNA template. The primers and probe used were 5′-GTAATAGCAGTCGGCGGTTTCTT-3′ (forward) (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Gratz, Amour, Nshama, Walongo, Maro, Mduma, Platts-Mills, Boisen, Nataro, Haverstick, Kabir, Lertsethtakarn, Silapong, Jeamwattanalert, Bodhidatta, Mason, Begum, Haque, Praharaj and Houpt2016), 5′-GCCCAACATGCCACCTATTC-3′ (reverse) (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Gratz, Amour, Nshama, Walongo, Maro, Mduma, Platts-Mills, Boisen, Nataro, Haverstick, Kabir, Lertsethtakarn, Silapong, Jeamwattanalert, Bodhidatta, Mason, Begum, Haque, Praharaj and Houpt2016) and Texas Red-TTGGCGGACAATTGCATGCGAT-BHQ2 (probe) (Wiria et al., Reference Wiria, Prasetyani, Hamid, Wammes, Lell, Ariawan, Uh, Wibowo, Djuardi, Wahyuni, Sutanto, May, Luty, Verweij, Sartono, Yazdanbakhsh and Supali2010). The PCR amplification was performed in a StepOnePlus real-time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), using the following thermal profile: 50°C for 2 min, 95°C for 10 min, 45 cycles of 10 s at 95°C, 30 s at 60°C. The results were expressed in genome equivalents per mL of stool DNA extract (GE/mL).

Results

A total of 64/286 (22.4%; 95% CI = 17.8–27.7) stool samples (37/115 = 32.2%, 95% CI = 23.9–41.6 for Indian children and 27/171 = 15.8%, 95% CI = 10.8–22.3 for immigrants in Italy) were classified as positive for A. lumbricoides using the Kato-Katz technique. Of all the positive stool samples, 36 samples showed mammillated (Fig. 1A and B) A. lumbricoides eggs (56.3%; 95% CI = 43.3–68.4), 25 elements ascribable to fertilized decorticated eggs (39.1%; 95% CI = 27.4–52.1) (Fig. 3), while three samples showed mammillated and fertilized decorticated eggs (4.7%; 95% CI = 1.2–14.0).

Fig. 3. Elements ascribable to fertilized decorticated A. lumbricoides eggs founded in Kato-Katz.

A total of 39/286 stool samples (13.6%; 95% CI = 10.0–18.3; 22/115 = 19.1%, 95% CI = 12.6–27.8 for Indian children and 17/171 = 9.9%, 95% CI = 6.1–15.7 for immigrants in Italy) were classified as positive for A. lumbricoides by Mini-FLOTAC. The elements identified as fertilized decorticated A. lumbricoides eggs in 28 samples by Kato-Katz were identified as artefacts by Mini-FLOTAC, because they were different in size and in morphology (i.e. size often was larger than 65 μm and internal granular nature was not present) from fertilized decorticated eggs of A. lumbricoides. Mini-FLOTAC provided statistically significant (P < 0.05) higher mean A. lumbricoides egg counts than the Kato-Katz technique (285 vs 174 eggs per gram of stool) for the 39 positive samples for both techniques. All the results obtained for each technique are summarized in Table 1. Coprocultures performed on all the 28 dubious stool samples, with fertilized decorticated eggs, confirmed that no larvated eggs were identified after incubation. Moreover, negative results were obtained also by qPCR performed on the same dubious samples, grouped in two pools: one for Indian samples and another for immigrant samples. For these reasons, these elements were identified as artefacts, probably referable to pollen grains.

Table 1. Summary of results obtained with Kato-Katz thick smear and Mini-FLOTAC for the diagnosis of Ascaris lumbricoides in stool samples from two cohorts (school-age children from India and adult immigrants in Italy)

Discussion

The current global strategy by the WHO is to achieve and maintain the STH moderate-to-heavy intensity to less than 2% reducing the preventive chemotherapy (PC) deworming programmes based on albendazole or mebendazole treatment of pre-school and school age children living in endemic areas. However, an accurate diagnosis is necessary for an appropriate strategy of intervention, as well as for monitoring the impact of PC programmes.

The clinical diagnosis of STH is not possible, because infected people might be asymptomatic or showing unspecific signs (Shalaby and Shalaby, Reference Shalaby and Shalaby2016). For these reasons, currently, the diagnosis of A. lumbricoides, as for the other STHs, relies on the microscopic demonstration of eggs in stool (Cools et al., Reference Cools, Vlaminck, Albonico, Ame, Ayana, José Antonio, Cringoli, Dana, Keiser, Maurelli, Maya, Matoso, Montresor, Mekonnen, Mirams, Corrêa-Oliveira, Pinto, Rinaldi, Sayasone, Thomas, Verweij, Vercruysse and Levecke2019; Momčilović et al., Reference Momcilovic, Cantacessi, Arsic-Arsenijevic, Otranto and Tasić-Otašević2019). However, the main problem in parasite identification is distinguishing the parasitic structures from artefacts that can be present in stool samples, especially for A. lumbricoides that can be easier misclassified (Colmer-Hamood, Reference Colmer-Hamood2001; Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Arrowood, Kokoskin, Paltridge, Pillai, Procop, Ryan, Shimizu and Visvesvara2018). Moreover, the presence of artefacts can perturb the eggs per gram of faeces (EPG) evaluation especially when the level of infection is low (<5000 EPG for A. lumbricoides, Cools et al., Reference Cools, Vlaminck, Albonico, Ame, Ayana, José Antonio, Cringoli, Dana, Keiser, Maurelli, Maya, Matoso, Montresor, Mekonnen, Mirams, Corrêa-Oliveira, Pinto, Rinaldi, Sayasone, Thomas, Verweij, Vercruysse and Levecke2019). This error can diminish when the infections are moderate-heavy and the fraction of artefacts is lower than ‘true’ eggs value.

In this study, the Mini-FLOTAC discriminated correctly between parasitic elements and artefacts, as reported in ‘Results’.

The Mini-FLOTAC, indeed, thanks to the flotation (using a flotation solution with a specific gravity able to evidence precise parasitic elements) and translation features, allows the complete separation of parasitic elements and debris in counting chambers, with a subsequent clearer view that facilitates a correct differential diagnosis between parasitic eggs and artefacts. This technique was used previously and compared with Kato-Katz for A. lumbricoides detection with similar sensitivity and higher specificity. However, using the appropriate flotation solution higher sensitivity can be obtained (Barda et al., Reference Barda, Cajal, Villagran, Cimino, Juarez, Krolewiecki, Rinaldi, Cringoli, Burioni and Albonico2014; Lamberton and Jourdan, Reference Lamberton and Jourdan2015). Indeed, the choice of the flotation solution is of utmost importance to increase the sensitivity to detect parasitic elements and to easily distinguish the artefacts from eggs (Cringoli et al., Reference Cringoli, Rinaldi, Maurelli and Utzinger2010). Based on the above-mentioned advantages, in 2019, the Mini-FLOTAC was included in the WHO guidelines among the suggested techniques for STH diagnosis (WHO, 2019).

One limitation of our study was that we could not confirm by molecular techniques if the artefacts that we found were vegetable material, pollen grains or other elements as food residues, because we did not have enough quantity of stool. The use of innovative tools such as fluorescent dyes for a rapid discrimination between A. lumbricoides eggs and artefacts could be very useful to facilitate egg identification. This approach was used previously to evaluate viability of some eggs, e.g. Schistosoma haematobium and Ascaris suum (Włodarczyk et al., Reference Włodarczyk, Zdybel, Próchniak, Osiński, Karamon, Kłapeć and Cencek2017; Forson et al., Reference Forson, Tetteh-Quarcoo, Ahenkorah, Aryee, Okine, Afutu, Djameh, Agyapong, Anang and Ayeh-Kumi2019). The permeable fluorescent dyes penetrate in the intact structures of cells, emitting light of different colours which permit to distinguish between live and dead eggs.

Moreover, recent advances in parasitological diagnosis are based on the development of semi-automated and automated systems (e.g. smartphone-based technologies, digital microscopes, etc.) combined with image analysis (e.g. FECPAKG2, Lab-on Disk Platform, Kubic FLOTAC Microscope, etc.) for the detection of helminth eggs. These systems are currently improving to increase the sensitivity and accuracy or to reduce the costs or to validate the tools in the lab and/or in the field (Cringoli et al., Reference Cringoli, Amadesi, Maurelli, Celano, Piantadosi, Bosco, Ciuca, Cesarelli, Bifulco, Montresor and Rinaldi2021). However, automated identification and counting of STH eggs, based on artificial intelligence will be very useful in order to reduce human errors and time of reading, increasing diagnostic efficiency (Lu et al., Reference Lu, Liu, Xiao, Hu, Zhang, Xu, Chu, Xu and Smith2018; Moser et al., Reference Moser, Bärenbold, Mirams, Cools, Vlaminck, Ali, Ame, Hattendorf, Vounatsou, Levecke and Keiser2018; Sukas et al., Reference Sukas, Van Dorst, Kryj, Lagatie, De Malsche and Stuyver2019; Cringoli et al., Reference Cringoli, Amadesi, Maurelli, Celano, Piantadosi, Bosco, Ciuca, Cesarelli, Bifulco, Montresor and Rinaldi2021). Moreover, often these tools permit also to transfer via internet the captured pictures to other laboratories, supporting the technicians also directly in the field (Tele-Parasitology) (Cringoli et al., Reference Cringoli, Amadesi, Maurelli, Celano, Piantadosi, Bosco, Ciuca, Cesarelli, Bifulco, Montresor and Rinaldi2021). Therefore, in this way, it will be possible also to achieve one of the main goals of the WHO NTD 2021-2030 roadmap to control and eliminate STH in endemic regions, using standardized and advanced diagnostic techniques (WHO, 2020).

Data

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. The datasets used and/or analysed during the present study available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the staff of National Centre for Disease Control in New Delhi (India) for their collaboration to collect and process the stool samples at the NCDC laboratory.

Author contributions

MPM, LCA, PC, BL, PC, DI and LG: performed sampling and laboratory analyses. AM, GC, CSA and LR: conceived the study. All authors contributed to data analysis and interpretation, and preparation of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Financial support

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

The Mini-FLOTAC technique was developed and is patented by GC, but the patent has been handed over to the University of Naples Federico II. The fact that GC is the current patent holder of the Mini-FLOTAC and Fill-FLOTAC had no role in the preparation and submission of the protocols reported or the design and implementation of ongoing and future studies. To obtain Mini- FLOTAC or Fill-FLOTAC devices, a contribution is required that is used only to cover costs of production and packaging, and to contribute to the ongoing FLOTAC research. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

This research was included in the monitoring activities on STHs by the WHO.

References

Ash, LR and Orihel, TC (2007) Atlas of Human Parasitology, 5th Edn. Chicago, Illinois, USA: American Society for Clinical Pathology Press.Google Scholar
Assefa, LM, Crellen, T, Kepha, S, Kihara, JH, Njenga, SM, Pullan, RL and Brooker, SJ (2014) Diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of alternative methods for detection of soil-transmitted helminths in a post-treatment setting in western Kenya. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 8, e2843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayana, M, Cools, P, Mekonnen, Z, Biruksew, A, Dana, D, Rashwan, N, Prichard, R, Vlaminck, J, Verweij, JJ and Levecke, B (2019) Comparison of four DNA extraction and three preservation protocols for the molecular detection and quantification of soil-transmitted helminths in stool. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13, e0007778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barda, B, Cajal, P, Villagran, E, Cimino, R, Juarez, M, Krolewiecki, A, Rinaldi, L, Cringoli, G, Burioni, R and Albonico, M (2014) Mini-FLOTAC, Kato-Katz and McMaster: three methods, one goal; highlights from north Argentina. Parasites & Vectors 7, 271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barda, B, Albonico, M, Ianniello, D, Ame, SM, Keiser, J, Speich, B, Rinaldi, L, Cringoli, G, Burioni, R, Montresor, A and Utzinger, J (2015) How long can stool samples be fixed for an accurate diagnosis of soil-transmitted helminth infection using Mini-FLOTAC? PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9, e0003698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin-Chung, J, Nazneen, A, Halder, AK, Haque, R, Siddique, A, Uddin, MS, Koporc, K, Arnold, BF, Hubbard, AE, Unicomb, L, Luby, SP, Addiss, DG and Colford, JM (2015) The interaction of deworming, improved sanitation, and household flooring with soil-transmitted helminth infection in rural Bangladesh. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9, e0004256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benjamin-Chung, J, Pilotte, N, Ercumen, A, Grant, JR, Maasch, JRMA, Gonzalez, AM, Ester, AC, Arnold, BF, Rahman, M, Haque, R, Hubbard, AE, Luby, SP, Williams, SA and Colford, JM (2020) Comparison of multi-parallel qPCR and double-slide Kato-Katz for detection of soil-transmitted helminth infection among children in rural Bangladesh. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 14, e0008087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colmer-Hamood, JA (2001) Fecal microscopy: artifacts mimicking ova and parasites. Laboratory Medicine 32, 8084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cools, P, Vlaminck, J, Albonico, M, Ame, S, Ayana, M, José Antonio, BP, Cringoli, G, Dana, D, Keiser, J, Maurelli, MP, Maya, C, Matoso, LF, Montresor, A, Mekonnen, Z, Mirams, G, Corrêa-Oliveira, R, Pinto, SA, Rinaldi, L, Sayasone, S, Thomas, E, Verweij, JJ, Vercruysse, J and Levecke, B (2019) Diagnostic performance of a single and duplicate Kato-Katz, Mini-FLOTAC, FECPAKG2 and qPCR for the detection and quantification of soil-transmitted helminths in three endemic countries. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13, e0007446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cringoli, G, Rinaldi, L, Maurelli, MP and Utzinger, J (2010) FLOTAC: new multivalent techniques for qualitative and quantitative copromicroscopic diagnosis of parasites in animals and humans. Nature Protocols 5, 503515. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2009.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cringoli, G, Maurelli, MP, Levecke, B, Bosco, A, Vercruysse, J, Utzinger, J and Rinaldi, L (2017) The Mini-FLOTAC technique for the diagnosis of helminth and protozoan infections in humans and animals. Nature Protocols 12, 17231732.10.1038/nprot.2017.067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cringoli, G, Amadesi, A, Maurelli, MP, Celano, B, Piantadosi, G, Bosco, A, Ciuca, L, Cesarelli, M, Bifulco, P, Montresor, A and Rinaldi, L (2021) The Kubic FLOTAC microscope (KFM): a new compact digital microscope for helminth egg counts. Parasitology 148, 427434. doi: 10.1017/S003118202000219XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dukpa, T, Dorji, N, Thinley, S, Wangchuk, , Tshering, K, Gyem, K, Wangmo, D, Sherpa, PL, Dorji, T and Montresor, A (2020) Soil-transmitted Helminth infections reduction in Bhutan: a report of 29 years of deworming. PLoS One 15(1), e0227273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forson, PO, Tetteh-Quarcoo, PB, Ahenkorah, J, Aryee, R, Okine, EN, Afutu, E, Djameh, GI, Agyapong, J, Anang, AK and Ayeh-Kumi, PF (2019) Ability of vital and fluorescent staining in the differentiation of Schistosoma haematobium live and dead eggs. Medical Sciences 7, 64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, LS (2007) Diagnostic Medical Parasitology, 5th Edn., Washington, DC, USA: ASM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, LS, Arrowood, M, Kokoskin, E, Paltridge, GP, Pillai, DR, Procop, GW, Ryan, N, Shimizu, RY and Visvesvara, G (2018) Practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories: laboratory diagnosis of parasites from the gastrointestinal tract. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 31, e00025–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jourdan, PM, Lamberton, PH, Fenwick, A and Addiss, DG (2018) Soil-transmitted helminth infections. Lancet (London, England) 391, 252265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, M-K, Pyo, K-H, Hwang, Y-S, Park, KH, Hwang, IG, Chai, J-Y and Shin, E-H (2012) Effect of temperature on embryonation of Ascaris suum eggs in an environmental chamber. The Korean Journal of Parasitology 50, 239242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberton, PHL and Jourdan, PM (2015) Human ascariasis: diagnostics update. Current Tropical Medicine Reports 2, 189200.10.1007/s40475-015-0064-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lanocha, A, Zdziarska, B, Lanocha-Arendarczyk, N, Kosik-Bogacka, D, Guzicka-Kazimierczak, R and Marzec-Lewenstein, E (2016) Respiratory failure associated with ascariasis in a patient with immunodeficiency. Case Reports in Infectious Diseases 2016, 15.Google Scholar
Lim, MD, Brooker, SJ, Belizario, VY, Gay-Andrieu, F, Gilleard, J, Levecke, B, van Lieshout, L, Medley, GF, Mekonnen, Z, Mirams, G, Njenga, SM, Odiere, MR, Rudge, JW, Stuyver, L, Vercruysse, J, Vlaminck, J, Walson, JL and the Annecy STH diagnostic experts group (2018) Diagnostic tools for soil-transmitted helminths control and elimination programs: a pathway for diagnostic product development. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 12, e0006213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, J, Gratz, J, Amour, C, Nshama, R, Walongo, T, Maro, A, Mduma, E, Platts-Mills, J, Boisen, N, Nataro, J, Haverstick, DM, Kabir, F, Lertsethtakarn, P, Silapong, S, Jeamwattanalert, P, Bodhidatta, L, Mason, C, Begum, S, Haque, R, Praharaj, I and Houpt, ER (2016) Optimization of quantitative PCR methods for enteropathogen detection. PLoS One 11, e0158199.10.1371/journal.pone.0158199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, Q, Liu, G, Xiao, C, Hu, C, Zhang, S, Xu, RX, Chu, K, Xu, Q and Smith, ZJ (2018) A modular, open-source, slide-scanning microscope for diagnostic applications in resource-constrained settings. PLoS ONE 13, e0194063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Momcilovic, S, Cantacessi, C, Arsic-Arsenijevic, V, Otranto, D and Tasić-Otašević, S (2019) Rapid diagnosis of parasitic diseases: current scenario and future needs. Clinical Microbiology Infection 25(3), 290309. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.04.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montresor, A, Mupfasoni, D, Mikhailov, A, Mwinzi, P, Lucianez, A, Jamsheed, M, Gasimov, E, Warusavithana, S, Yajima, A, Bisoffi, Z, Buonfrate, D, Steinmann, P, Utzinger, J, Levecke, B, Vlaminck, J, Cools, P, Vercruysse, J, Cringoli, G, Rinaldi, L, Blouin, B and Gyorkos, TW (2020) The global progress of soil-transmitted helminthiases control in 2020 and World Health Organization targets for 2030. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 14, e0008505.10.1371/journal.pntd.0008505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moser, W, Bärenbold, O, Mirams, GJ, Cools, P, Vlaminck, J, Ali, SM, Ame, SM, Hattendorf, J, Vounatsou, P, Levecke, B and Keiser, J (2018) Diagnostic comparison between FECPAKG2 and the Kato-Katz method for analyzing soil-transmitted helminth eggs in stool. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 12, e0006562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolay, B, Brooker, SJ and Pullan, RL (2014) Sensitivity of diagnostic tests for human soil-transmitted helminth infections: a meta-analysis in the absence of a true gold standard. International Journal for Parasitology 44, 765774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podhorsky, M (2011) Laboratorni diagnostika pseudoparazitu, artefaktu a parazitarnich bludu [Laboratory diagnosis of pseudoparasites, artifacts and parasitic delusions]. Klinicka Mikrobiologie a Infekcni Lekarstvi 17, 100102.Google Scholar
Shalaby, N and Shalaby, N (2016) Effect of Ascaris lumbricoides infection on T helper cell type 2 in rural Egyptian children. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 12, 379385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speich, B, Ali, SM, Ame, SM, Albonico, M, Utzinger, J and Keiser, J (2015) Quality control in the diagnosis of Trichuris trichiura and Ascaris lumbricoides using the Kato-Katz technique: experience from three randomised controlled trials. Parasites & Vectors 8, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukas, S, Van Dorst, B, Kryj, A, Lagatie, O, De Malsche, W and Stuyver, LJ (2019) Development of a lab-on-a-disk platform with digital imaging for identification and counting of parasite eggs in human and animal stool. Micromachines 10, 852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szwabe, K and Kurnatowski, P (2012) Comparative analysis of morphometric features of the eggs of selected alimentary tract parasites and of the plant pollens. Annals of Parasitology 58, 8796.Google ScholarPubMed
Wiria, AE, Prasetyani, MA, Hamid, F, Wammes, LJ, Lell, B, Ariawan, I, Uh, HW, Wibowo, H, Djuardi, Y, Wahyuni, S, Sutanto, I, May, L, Luty, AJF, Verweij, JJ, Sartono, E, Yazdanbakhsh, M and Supali, T (2010). Does treatment of intestinal helminth infections influence malaria? Background and methodology of a longitudinal study of clinical, parasitological and immunological parameters in Nangapanda, Flores, Indonesia (ImmunoSPIN study). BMC Infectious Diseases 10, 7789. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Włodarczyk, M, Zdybel, J, Próchniak, M, Osiński, Z, Karamon, J, Kłapeć, T and Cencek, T (2017) Viability assessment of Ascaris suum eggs stained with fluorescent dyes using digital colorimetric analysis. Experimental Parasitology 178, 713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2012) Soil-transmitted Helminthiases, STH: Eliminating Soil-Transmitted Helminthiases as A Public Health Problem in Children: Progress Report 2001–2010 and Strategic Plan 2011–2020. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2016) Diagnostic Errors: Technical Series on Safer Primary Care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2017) Guideline: Preventive Chemotherapy to Control Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infections in at-Risk Population Groups. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2019) Bench Aids for the Diagnosis of Intestinal Parasites. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2020) Soil-transmitted helminth infections. Retrieved from World Health Organization website. Available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/soil-transmitted-helminth-infections (Accessed 16 November 2020).Google Scholar
World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2004) Integrated guide to Sanitary Parasitology. Retrieved from World Health Organization website. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/116408 (Accessed 16 November 2020).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Unfertilized (A), fertilized mammillated (B) and fertilized decorticated (C) eggs of Ascaris lumbricoides. Mammillated layer is indicated with a green line.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Study design.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Elements ascribable to fertilized decorticated A. lumbricoides eggs founded in Kato-Katz.

Figure 3

Table 1. Summary of results obtained with Kato-Katz thick smear and Mini-FLOTAC for the diagnosis of Ascaris lumbricoides in stool samples from two cohorts (school-age children from India and adult immigrants in Italy)