Letters
Digestive system diseases Infectious diseases
Volume 187 - Issue 6

Amoebiasis: current status in Australia

Author:  Paul Prociv

Med J Aust 2007; 187 (6): 372-374. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01294.x
Published online: 17 September 2007
Download PDF (383 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: van Hal and colleagues deserve congratulations for their lucid, concise and timely review of the complex problem of human amoebic infection and its diagnosis.1 Not surprisingly, however, their article raises more questions than it answers.

To me, the gist of their message was as follows: what was in the past diagnosed as Entamoeba histolytica infection, based on the microscopic identification of organisms from faeces, culture or histological sections, actually may have been caused by other species, viz. E. dispar (a recently described non-pathogen) or E. moshkovskii (known for a long time from sewage samples, but only recently found to infect humans). Because these species are all identical morphologically, they can be distinguished reliably only by sophisticated molecular techniques.

To complicate matters further, despite E. dispar having been virtually defined as the “non-invasive form” of Entamoeba, most true E. histolytica infections are still asymptomatic.2 Not only the parasite, but also individual host factors (perhaps including genetics), determine pathogenicity. Thus, not all people infected with the same pathogenic strain will manifest symptoms or signs of invasive disease. Given their biology and evolution, it is conceivable that, eventually, invasive strains of even E. dispar will be discovered! Furthermore — and this seems not to have been investigated yet — mixed infections involving different species and strains of these parasites almost certainly occur (not to mention the “traditional” non-pathogenic amoebae, which frequently do occur in mixed infections).

The authors advocate treatment of even asymptomatic E. histolytica infections, but how would these be detected outside epidemiological surveys or healthy population screening programs? Given the difficulty and expense of specifically identifying the infective organism even in symptomatic cases, and the relative cheapness of treatment, surely it would be sufficient simply to treat on the basis of clinical presentation plus the identification of E. histolytica-like parasites, with or without objective evidence of histopathology. Anything more could be justified only within the context of a well funded and carefully designed research program and/or epidemiological study.

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

Digestive system diseases Research 18 August 2026 Open Access

Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer With Liver-Only Metastases: A Retrospective Cohort Study Integrating Prospectively Collected Real-World Clinical and Molecular Data From an Australian National Database (2009–2024) to Guide Treatment Planning

Savio G. Barreto, Christos S. Karapetis, Shahid Ullah, Matthew Burge, Susan Caird, Angus Campbell, Azim Jalali, Ross Jennens, Muhammad A. Khattak, Belinda Lee, Stephanie H. Lim, Shehara Mendis, Louise Nott, Timothy J. Price, Jeremy D. Shapiro, Jeanne Tie, Javier Torres, Colin Williams, Rachel Wong, Vanessa Wong, Peter Gibbs

Digestive system diseases Guideline summary 20 October 2025 Open Access

Clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance for people at high risk in Australia: summary of recommendations

Jacob George, Nicole L Allard, Stuart K Roberts, Leon A Adams, Jane Davies, Behzad Hajarizadeh, Jennifer H MacLachlan, Suzanne E Mahady, Rosalie Altus, Catherine Brown, David C Fry, Belinda Greenwood‐Smith, Natali Smud, Patricia C Valery, Nafisa Yussf, Kate Broun, Denise Campbell, Karen Canfell, Chelsea Carle Harrison, Victoria Freeman, Paul Grogan, Catherine Holliday, Suzanne Hughes, Anna Kelly, Cathelijne Kemenade, Claire Latumahina, Amanda McAtamney, Megan Varlow, Joachim Worthington, Susan Yuill, Eleonora Feletto

View more