Where have all the diagnostic morphological parasitologists gone?

Advances in laboratory techniques have revolutionized parasitology diagnostics over the past several decades. Widespread implementation of rapid antigen detection tests has greatly expanded access to tests for global parasitic threats such as malaria, while next-generation amplification and sequencing methods allow for sensitive and specific detection of human and animal parasites in complex specimen matrices. Recently, the introduction of multiplex panels for human gastrointestinal infections has enhanced the identification of common intestinal protozoa in feces along with bacterial and viral pathogens. Despite the benefits provided by novel diagnostics, increased reliance on nonmicroscopy-based methods has contributed to the progressive, widespread loss of morphology expertise for parasite identification. Loss of microscopy and morphology skills has the potential to negatively impact patient care, public health, and epidemiology. Molecular- and antigen-based diagnostics are not available for all parasites and may not be suitable for all specimen types and clinical settings. Furthermore, inadequate morphology experience may lead to missed and inaccurate diagnoses and erroneous descriptions of new human parasitic diseases. This commentary highlights the need to maintain expert microscopy and morphological parasitology diagnostic skills within the medical and scientific community. We proposed that light microscopy remains an important part of training and practice in the diagnosis of parasitic diseases and that efforts should be made to train the next generation of morphological parasitologists before the requisite knowledge, skills, and capacity for this complex and important mode of diagnosis are lost. In summary, the widespread, progressive loss of morphology expertise for parasite identification negatively impacts patient care, public health, and epidemiology. © 2022 American Society for Microbiology

A Case of Trauma-Induced Falciformispora lignatilis Eumycetoma in a Renal Transplant Recipient

Mycetoma is a chronic, granulomatous, subcutaneous infection caused by several species of fungi and soil-inhabiting bacteria, and is divided into eumycetoma and actinomycetoma, respectively. Endemicity is described with worldwide distribution within the “mycetoma belt”; however, the global burden is ill-defined. Mycetoma is rare in Australia, with only a few published case reports. Over time, the breadth of eumycetoma pathogens has expanded with local epidemiology accounting for variations in regional prevalence. Direct inoculation of pathogens typically heralds the triad of subcutaneous mass, sinus formation and discharging grains. We describe a case of eumycetoma in a 48-year-old male Filipino renal transplant recipient who presented with a painless slow-growing elbow lesion. Ultrasonography revealed two ovoid masses and surgical excision ensued. Histopathology revealed necrotising granulomata with numerous chestnut-brown thick-walled cells, septate hyphae, and occasional grains. On suspicion of localised chromoblastomycosis, the isolate was sent to a reference laboratory which identified the fungus as Falciformispora lignatilis, an organism not hitherto associated with human infection. Amongst the solid organ transplant cohort, similar atypical presentations have been described. Clinicians need to consider eumycetoma where an epidemiological link with the tropics exists, especially in atypical presentations in transplant recipients, including absent preceding trauma

Australian consensus statements for the regulation, production and use of faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice

Objective: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has proved to be an extremely effective treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, and there is interest in its potential application in other gastrointestinal and systemic diseases. However, the recent death and episode of septicaemia following FMT highlights the need for further appraisal and guidelines on donor evaluation, production standards, treatment facilities and acceptable clinical indications. Design: For these consensus statements, a 24-member multidisciplinary working group voted online and then convened in-person, using a modified Delphi approach to formulate and refine a series of recommendations based on best evidence and expert opinion. Invitations to participate were directed to Australian experts, with an international delegate assisting the development. The following issues regarding the use of FMT in clinical practice were addressed: donor selection and screening, clinical indications, requirements of FMT centres and future directions. Evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Results: Consensus was reached on 27 statements to provide guidance on best practice in FMT. These include: (1) minimum standards for donor screening with recommended clinical selection criteria, blood and stool testing; (2) accepted routes of administration; (3) clinical indications; (4) minimum standards for FMT production and requirements for treatment facilities acknowledging distinction between single-site centres (eg, hospital-based) and stool banks; and (5) recommendations on future research and product development. Conclusions: These FMT consensus statements provide comprehensive recommendations around the production and use of FMT in clinical practice with relevance to clinicians, researchers and policy makers