A total of 2,718 blood samples were analyzed in five virological laboratories for the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) by in-house tests and one standardized plasma PCR assay. Results from in-house tests showed remarkable variability. Detection of CMV pp65 antigen or DNA from cells was more sensitive than that by plasma CMV PCR assay.
Quantitative cytomegalovirus (CMV) monitoring is still far from being standardized between transplant centers. In the present study, we compared assays for quantitative CMV monitoring using blood cells and plasma. Four hundred and thirty-five consecutive samples from 29 patients with active CMV infection after allogeneic Tcell-depleted hemopoietic stem cell transplantation were tested in parallel using pp65 antigenemia and quantitative CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in blood cells and plasma (COBAS AMPLICOR CMV MONITOR). Although only 142 (53.1%) of 253 positive samples were concordantly identified by all three assays, the number of positive samples detected by each assay was not different and the quantitative values were correlated, provided that nucleic acid (NA) in plasma was isolated by COBAS AmpliPrep and not by the manual protocol. Six (18%) of 34 episodes with active CMV infection were not detected using CMV PCR in plasma; whereas in times of white blood cell aplasia or blast crisis of leukemia, samples with active CMV infection in plasma could not be detected using blood cells. We conclude that CMV monitoring in whole blood could be favorable compared with assays using plasma or blood cells alone. Automated NA isolation could become an attractive tool for a more sensitive and better standardized molecular diagnostics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.