Comparison of culture and the antigenemia assay for detection of cytomegalovirus in blood specimens submitted to a reference laboratory

Brumback, B G; Bolejack, S N; Morris, Mary-Kate; Mohla, C; Shutzbank, T E

doi:10.1128/jcm.35.7.1819-1821.1997

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerical CMV antigenemia values are useful in confirming infection, suggesting prognosis, and determining response to therapy (151). CMV antigenemia assays, the reagents for which are commercially available from several sources, have been shown to be specific and more sensitive than CMV isolation in conventional or shell vial cell cultures (16,44,149). However, the antigenemia assay is particularly labor-intensive and time-consuming, especially when large numbers of samples are tested.…”

Section: If Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Cell Culture for Virus Detection in the Age of Technology

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Viral disease diagnosis has traditionally relied on the isolation of viral pathogens in cell cultures. Although this approach is often slow and requires considerable technical expertise, it has been regarded for decades as the “gold standard” for the laboratory diagnosis of viral disease. With the development of nonculture methods for the rapid detection of viral antigens and/or nucleic acids, the usefulness of viral culture has been questioned. This review describes advances in cell culture-based viral diagnostic products and techniques, including the use of newer cell culture formats, cryopreserved cell cultures, centrifugation-enhanced inoculation, precytopathogenic effect detection, cocultivated cell cultures, and transgenic cell lines. All of these contribute to more efficient and less technically demanding viral detection in cell culture. Although most laboratories combine various culture and nonculture approaches to optimize viral disease diagnosis, virus isolation in cell culture remains a useful approach, especially when a viable isolate is needed, if viable and nonviable virus must be differentiated, when infection is not characteristic of any single virus (i.e., when testing for only one virus is not sufficient), and when available culture-based methods can provide a result in a more timely fashion than molecular methods.

show abstract

Section: If Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Cell Culture for Virus Detection in the Age of Technology

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of cytomegalovirus antigenemia and culture assays in patients on and off antiviral therapy

George

Rinaldo

1999

J. Med. Virol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined 1,869 consecutive blood specimens from 529 patients (>80% organ transplant recipients) for detection of CMV by antigenemia and culture assays, and compared results between patients on and off antiviral therapy. All 1,869 specimens were tested by the shell vial assay and antigenemia, and 503 were also tested by standard tube culture. The overall positivity rate for each test was 17.0% for antigenemia, 1.8% for shell vial culture assay, and 0.7% by tube culture. No specimens were positive by either shell vial or tube culture, while negative by antigenemia. These findings were consistent across all organ transplant and other patient types. Shell vial positivity was associated with higher antigenemia levels in patients either on or off anti-CMV drug therapy. Among the shell vial positive specimens, the antigenemia counts were higher in patients on antiviral drug therapy as compared to those not on therapy. We conclude that the pp65 antigenemia assay is superior to culture methods for detection of CMV in blood, particularly for patients on anti-CMV drug treatment. Additionally, its quantitative nature renders the antigenemia assay an excellent tracking tool for both resolution of asymptomatic, low level CMV reactivations and response of CMV infection to antiviral treatment.

show abstract