Monitoring cytomegalovirus infection by antigenemia assay and two distinct plasma real-time PCR methods after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

Summary:We compared a CMV virus load determined by realtime PCR with an antigenemia value to analyze the correlation between these two methods. We also compared the values for virus load determined by the two distinct real-time PCR methods, which amplify the US17 region and immediate-early (IE) gene of CMV, respectively, to evaluate the reliability of these methods. Two hundred and sixty-five samples were obtained weekly from 29 patients, who had engraftment after unrelated bone marrow transplantation or HLA-mismatched related blood stem cell transplantation. CMV infection was detected in 115 samples from 22 patients by US17-PCR and 69 samples from 20 patients by the antigenemia assay. Fifty-eight samples were positive for both assays, but 57 and 11 samples were positive only for US17-PCR and antigenemia, respectively. A good correlation of the results of US17-PCR and antigenemia was demonstrated (r = 0.61). All antigenemia-positive samples and randomly selected antigenemia-negative samples were subjected to IE-PCR. The results of IE-PCR showed a good correlation with those of antigenemia (r = 0.64). Furthermore, the best correlation was observed between US17-PCR and IE-PCR (r = 0.83). In conclusion, both real-time PCR methods showed a good correlation with the antigenemia assay, and could be used to monitor CMV infection after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Real-time PCR assays based on distinct genomic regions for cytomegalovirus reactivation following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

“…Results for all combinations of genomic regions correlated well. Tanaka et al 15 reported that US17-PCR showed a higher (approximately three--10-fold) viral load than IE-PCR. But this trend was not demonstrated in our study.…”

Quantification of DNA in Plasma by an Automated Real-Time PCR Assay (Cytomegalovirus PCR Kit) for Surveillance of Active Cytomegalovirus Infection and Guidance of Preemptive Therapy for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients

“…The antigenemia assay, however, requires rapid processing of specimens, is labor-intensive, cannot be automated, is subjective in reading, and is unfeasible during periods of severe neutropenia. In addition, it does not reflect the viral load in the blood compartment accurately (12) and sometimes displays negative results in the presence of CMV disease (2,31,32,36).Quantification of CMV DNA in blood by PCR is emerging as an alternative to the antigenemia assay and may soon become the standard for the surveillance of CMV infection in Allo-SCT recipients. Viral load quantification in blood allows early detection of active CMV infection, close monitoring of the response to antivirals, prediction of the risk of viremic relapse, emergence of resistant strains, and eventual development of CMV disease (8,31).…”

“…The antigenemia assay, however, requires rapid processing of specimens, is labor-intensive, cannot be automated, is subjective in reading, and is unfeasible during periods of severe neutropenia. In addition, it does not reflect the viral load in the blood compartment accurately (12) and sometimes displays negative results in the presence of CMV disease (2,31,32,36).…”

Real-Time PCR Assay Compared to Nested PCR and Antigenemia Assays for Detecting Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Adult T-Cell Leukemia-Lymphoma Patients

“…When input concentration was 2,500 to 5,000 copies/ml, the sensitivity of nested PCR was 47.3%, while sensitivity was (21). Therefore, we compared the nested PCR protocols being used at our institution with results obtained by using the most popular primers in real-time PCR assays.…”