Abstract
Recently a number of broad-range stool parasite PCR assays have been developed. However, there is ongoing disagreement regarding their diagnostic performance, as various studies have produced contradictory results. In this study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Seegene Allplex GI-Parasite and Allplex GI-Helminth assays (SA) with the conventional methods used at the travel clinic of the Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM) including microscopy, antigen testing, and molecular detection in order to provide insights into the strengths and limitations of this diagnostic tool which may be crucial to select the most appropriate diagnostic tools for the suspected pathogen. A total of 97 native stool samples from 95 patients with suspected gastrointestinal illness were analyzed, including 26 from a frozen collection and 71 prospectively collected samples. The diagnostic performance of SA was notably superior to the conventional workflow in detecting Dientamoeba fragilis (sensitivity 100% vs. 47.4%) and Blastocystis hominis (sensitivity 95% vs. 77.5%). SA had a comparable performance with the conventional workflow in detecting pathogenic protozoa (sensitivity 90% vs. 95%). In contrast, SA had a much lower diagnostic performance in detecting helminths (59.1%) compared to the conventional workflow (100%). We conclude that the Seegene Allplex GI-Parasite assay may be useful for protozoa screening in low-endemic industrialized countries. However, the Allplex GI-Helminth assay is not recommended due to its suboptimal performance compared to microscopy.