Graeme Paltridge, Liron Pantanowitz, Mark Perry, David Persing, William A. Petri, Jr., Michael Pfaller, N. J. Pieniazek, Dylan R. Pillai, Kathy Powers, E. Pozio, Bobbi Pritt, Paul Prociv, Gary W. Procop, Fred Rachford, Sharon L. Reed, Barth Reller, Julie Ribes, Andrew Rocha, William Rogers, Jon Rosenblatt, Allen G. P. Ross, Norbert Ryan, Judy Sakanari, Carol Santaloci, Peter Schantz, Frederick L. Schuster, James Seidel, Nicholas Serafy, J. A. Shadduck, Harsha Sheorey, Irwin Sherman, Robyn Shimizu, Balbir Singh, James Smith, Rosemary Soave, Frank J. Sorvillo, S. L. Stanley, Jr., John Steele, Deborah Stenzel, Damian Stark, Linda Stetzenbach, Charles Sterling, James J. Sullivan, Alex Sulzer, Kevin S. W. Tan, Egbert Tannich, Herbert Tanowitz, Mehmet Tanyuksel, William Trager, Peter Traynor, Antonio R. L. Teixeira, Sam Telford, William Trager, Allan R. Truant, Jerrold Turner, Saul Tzipori, Jacqueline A. Upcroft, Peter Upcroft, Tom van Gool, Eric Vanderslice, Jacob Verweij, Govinda Visvesvara, Marietta Voge, Susanne Wahlquist, Kenneth Walls, Rainer Weber, Wilfred Weinstein, Louis Weiss, P. P. Wilkins, John Williams, John Wilson, Marianna Wilson, Jeffrey J. Windsor, Washington Winn, Martin Wolfe, Donna Wolk, Johnson Wong, Lihua Xiao, Nigel Yeates, Judy Yost, Wenbao Zhang, Charles and Wiladene Zierdt, and many others whom I may have failed to mention specifically. If the information contained in this edition provides help to those in the field of microbiology, I will have succeeded in passing on this composite knowledge to the next generation of students and teachers.
Special thanks go to Sharon Belkin for her additional illustrations for this edition. I also thank Ronald Neafie from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology for providing many photographs to illustrate several areas of the book, particularly the information on histological identification of parasites, and Herman Zaiman for providing slides that he has prepared and/or edited from many contributors worldwide. Very special thanks go to the group at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the use of many of their clinical parasitology images; these images are invaluable to the microbiology community and include images contributed to CDC by many others, as well.
I would like to thank members of the editorial staff of ASM Press, especially Ellie Tupper; they are outstanding professionals and made my job not only challenging but fun.
Above all, my very special thanks go to my late husband, John, for his love and support for the many projects that I have been involved in over the years. I could never have undertaken these challenges without his help and understanding, a true partnership.
 |
|
| PART I Diagnostic Procedures | |
| 1 | Philosophy and Approach to Diagnostic Parasitology |
With the expansion of world travel and increased access to more varied geographic areas and populations, medical and laboratory professionals will continue to see more “tropical” diseases and infections in nonendemic areas. This is due to the rapidity with which both people and organisms can be conveyed from one place to another. Travel has become available and more affordable for many people throughout the world, including those who are in some way compromised in terms of their overall health status. The increased transportation of infectious agents, as well as potential human carriers, has been clearly demonstrated, particularly via air travel. It has also been well documented that vectors carrying parasitic organisms can be transported via air travel in baggage and in the unpressurized parts of the plane itself; once released, these infected vectors can then transmit these parasites to humans, even in nonendemic areas.
With the continued increase in the number of patients whose immune systems are compromised through either underlying illness, chemotherapy, transplantation, AIDS, or age, we are much more likely to see increasing numbers of opportunistic infections, including those caused by parasites. Also, we continue to discover and document organisms once thought to be nonpathogenic that, when found in the compromised host, can cause serious disease. In considering the potential causes of illness in this patient population, the possibility of parasitic infections must always be considered as part of the differential diagnosis.
Diagnostic procedures in the field of medical parasitology require a great deal of judgmental and interpretative experience and are, with very few exceptions, classified by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988 (CLIA ’88) as high complexity procedures. Very few procedures are automated, and organism identification relies primarily on morphologic characteristics that can be very difficult to differentiate. Although parasite morphology can be “learned” at the microscope, knowledge about the life cycle, epidemiology, infectivity, geographic range, clinical symptoms, range of illness, disease presentation depending on immune status, and recommended therapy is critical to the operation of any laboratory providing diagnostic services in medical parasitology.
The basic approach to diagnostic parasitology should be no different from that used in other areas of microbiology. There are guidelines published by the American Society for Microbiology (1–5), the American Society of Parasitologists (6), the American Society for Medical Technology (7), the College of American Pathologists (8), and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (formerly National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) (9–16) that contain recommended procedures for this field. If these general guidelines and recommendations are not followed, there is some question as to the qualifications of the laboratory performing the diagnostic work. At the very least, the clinician should be informed about the limitations of the procedures that are being used. These guidelines are also accompanied by specific regulations for a number of laboratory issues and include CLIA ’88 and requirements related to safety and protection of employees from blood or blood-borne pathogens (standard precautions) (17–20).
Because it is difficult for medical staff to maintain expertise in every available diagnostic procedure within microbiology, it is mandatory that close communication exist between the laboratory and clinicians. Frequent and complete communication, particularly concerning appropriate test orders and the clinical relevance of any diagnostic procedure within the context of total patient care and quality assurance, is very important. Therapeutic intervention often depends on results obtained from these procedures; therefore, the clinician must be aware of the limitations of each test method and the results obtained. This information becomes particularly important when one is discussing the patient’s history and the recommended number and types of specimens to be submitted for examination.
During the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the importance of having trained and qualified personnel perform these diagnostic procedures. There has been a concerted effort among many individuals and institutions in this country to upgrade the level of teaching and to bring to the medical community’s
