href="#ulink_c4e6d406-c891-581a-a9ba-145f7bb9ad41">24). The use of antibacterial therapy that affects the normal gastrointestinal tract flora will diminish the numbers of protozoa, since they feed on intestinal bacteria.
Fecal specimens should be collected in clean, wide-mouth containers; often a 0.5-pint (ca. 0.24-liter) waxed cardboard or plastic container with a tight-fitting lid is selected for this purpose. The fit of the lid is particularly important, both from the standpoint of accidental spillage and in order to maintain moisture within the specimen. The specimens should not be contaminated with water or urine, because water may contain free-living organisms that can be mistaken for human parasites and urine may destroy motile organisms. For safety reasons, stool specimen containers should be placed in plastic bags when transported to the laboratory for testing. Fresh specimens can also be submitted in collection vials (Fig. 2.1). All fresh specimens should be carefully handled, since they are potential sources of infectious organisms, including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Every specimen should be identified with the following minimal information: patient’s name and identification number, physician’s name, and the date and time the specimen was collected (if the laboratory is computerized, the date and time may reflect arrival in the laboratory, not the actual collection time). The specimen must also be accompanied by a request form indicating which laboratory procedures are to be performed. It is also be very helpful to have information concerning the presumptive diagnosis or relevant travel history; however, this information is rarely available, and under certain circumstances, the physician will have to be contacted for additional patient history (Example: Fever of unknown origin [FUO]—possible malaria).
Figure 2.1 Stool collection vial; “clean vial” contains no fixatives. doi:10.1128/9781555819002.ch2.f2.1
Number of Specimens To Be Collected (Standard Recommendation)
It is recommended that a normal examination for stool parasites before therapy include three specimens, consisting of two specimens collected from normal movements and one collected after the use of a cathartic such as magnesium sulfate or Fleet’s Phospho-Soda. A cathartic with an oil base should not be used, and a stool softener (taken either orally or as a suppository) is usually inadequate for obtaining a purged specimen. The purpose of the laxative is to stimulate some “flushing” action within the gastrointestinal tract, possibly allowing one to obtain more organisms for recovery and identification. Obviously, if the patient already has diarrhea or dysentery, the use of any laxatives would be contraindicated. Since the majority of patients are symptomatic prior to submission of stool specimens for examination, the need for a laxative is relatively uncommon.
When a patient is suspected of having intestinal amebiasis, six specimens may be recommended. The examination of six specimens ensures detection of approximately 90% of amebic infections (5) (Fig. 2.2). However, because of cost-containment measures, the examination of six specimens is rarely requested.
Figure 2.2 Increased detection of Entamoeba histolytica by using various diagnostic techniques and serial stool specimens. (Adapted by Markell EK, Voge M, John DT, 1992, Medical Parasitology, 7th ed., The W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA, from references 17 and 31, with permission.) doi:10.1128/9781555819002.ch2.f2.2
Three specimens are also recommended for posttherapy examinations, and they should be collected as outlined above. However, a patient who has received treatment for a protozoan infection should be checked 3 to 4 weeks after therapy, and those treated for Taenia infections should be checked 5 to 6 weeks after therapy. In some cases, the physician will assume a cure for tapeworm infection unless proglottids reappear in the stool; therefore, no posttherapy specimens are submitted for examination.
Number of Specimens To Be Collected (Pros and Cons of Various Options)
During the past few years, a number of issues have surfaced regarding the collection, processing, and testing of stool specimens for diagnostic parasitology. Many of the new suggestions and options have arisen as a result of continued cost-containment measures, limited reimbursement, and the elimination of mercury-based compounds for stool preservatives. The number of nonmercury preservative choices, collection systems, concentration devices, and immunoassays has increased dramatically. Many laboratories continue to review the options, and some may be having difficulties in selecting the proper approach (7–22).
It is important to realize that there are many acceptable options and that many laboratories will select different approaches. These differences should not be categorized as “right or wrong” or “acceptable or unacceptable”—they are merely different! To assume that there is only one correct approach for the examination of stool specimens is neither appropriate nor realistic. There are many parameters to consider before selecting the approach for your own laboratory. In no particular order, some of the considerations include client base, physician ordering patterns, number of specimens received per month, cost, presence or absence of appropriate equipment, current and possible methodologies (including immunoassays such as enzyme immunoassay [EIA], fluorescent-antibody assay [FA], and rapid membrane flow cartridge devices [rapids]), availability of expert microscopists, collection options, selection of preservative-stain combinations, reimbursement issues, client education, area of the world where laboratory is located, and emphasis on the most common infections (helminth or protozoa or both).
When considering available options and laboratory test menus, it is important to make sure that the pros and cons of the approaches selected are thoroughly understood and that diagnostic tests, potential results, and reporting formats are carefully explained to all clients. As an example, if the results of a stool examination are based on a concentration sediment examination only, this information must be conveyed to the physician. Many of the intestinal protozoa are missed by this diagnostic test approach, and it is important for the physician to recognize the limitations of such testing. Most physicians receive very little, if any, exposure to medical parasitology in medical school, and many newer physicians trained as generalists or family practitioners also have limited parasitology training or experience.
In most cases, it is probably realistic to assume that patients are symptomatic if they are submitting stool specimens for diagnostic parasitology testing. In an excellent article by Hiatt et al., the premise tested was that a single stool sample from a symptomatic patient would be sufficient to diagnose infections with intestinal protozoa (23). However, with additional stool examinations for symptomatic patients, the yield of intestinal protozoa increased dramatically (Entamoeba histolytica, 22.7% increase; Giardia lamblia, 11.3% increase; and Dientamoeba fragilis, 31.1% increase). This publication again demonstrates the problems with performing only a single stool examination (using the ova and parasite examination). If the patient becomes asymptomatic after the first stool examination, it may be acceptable to discontinue the series of stool examinations (this should be a clinician decision).
Available options are compared to the “gold standard,” which includes a series of three stool examinations (direct, concentrate, and permanent stained smear for a fresh specimen; concentrate and permanent stained smear for a preserved specimen). The single-specimen pros and cons are
