Differences in cytomegalovirus plasma viral loads measured in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients using two commercial real-time PCR assays

Detection of CMV Infection in Allogeneic SCT Recipients: The Multiple Assays

“…While recently reports have shown improvement in the sensibility obtained by the automated extraction instruments in comparison with the manual extraction kits (Gartner et al, 2004;Mengelle et al, 2011), and several studies performed on different herpesviruses have shown increased sensibility when automated extraction was performed compared to manual extraction kits (Nicholson et al;Griffiths et al;, our laboratory recently demonstrated that the DNA extraction method from Affigene was more efficient than the automated system from Abbott providing a more accurate estimation of CMV DNA load (Gracia-Ahufinger et al, 2010). Our data proving that the manual DNA extraction method from Affigene resulted in a more efficient DNA extraction in comparison with that of an automated procedure from Abbott were somewhat surprising and are in contrast to previously published studies showing just the opposite (Kalpoe et al, 2004;Limaye et al, 2001).…”

“…However, there are not many studies based on the application of these commercial assays in SCT recipients (Bravo et al;Gimeno et al, 2008;Gouarin et al, 2007;Gracia-Ahufinger et al, 2010;Hanson et al, 2007). As it will be described below, these studies evaluated the suitability of the commercial assays for the surveillance of active CMV infection in these patients and compared the performance of the different tests.…”

“…The Affigene CMV Trender assay yielded higher viral load than the Abbot test, suggesting a better analytical performance. The comparison was also performed using the OptiQuant CMV DNA quantification panel showing that the Affigene test provides a more accurate estimation of the CMV DNA load (Gracia-Ahufinger et al, 2010). The test manufactured by Abbott, was previously evaluated in plasma samples from SCT recipients (Gimeno et al, 2008).…”

“…This difference limits the comparisons inter-laboratories and prevents the establishment of a determinate cut-off broadly applicable for making clinical decisions and monitoring the initiation of pre-emptive therapy . These discrepancies result into clinical therapeutic consequences, as a number of patients may receive treatment in one hospital while not in other hospital using a different assay (Gracia-Ahufinger et al, 2010). …”

Comparative Evaluation of Three Automated Systems for DNA Extraction in Conjunction with Three Commercially Available Real-Time PCR Assays for Quantitation of Plasma Cytomegalovirus DNAemia in Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients

“…The analytical performance and clinical usefulness of these assays have been assessed, mostly in comparison with the pp65 antigenemia test or quantitative endpoint PCR assays (1, 2, 6, 9, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24-26). Limited data are available on how these QRT-PCR tests compare to each other for the quantitation of CMV plasma DNAemia (5,11,12,18,24). This information may allow, at least to some extent, direct comparisons of CMV DNA loads measured at different centers.…”