Cargando…

CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays

BACKGROUND: CMV is a major clinical problem in transplant recipients. Thus, it is important to use sensitive and specific diagnostic techniques to rapidly and accurately detect CMV infection and identify patients at risk of developing CMV disease. In the present study, CMV infection after liver tran...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amorim, Maria Luís, Cabeda, José Manuel, Seca, Rui, Mendes, Ana Constança, Castro, Ana Paula, Amorim, José Manuel
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2001
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC32208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11389774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-1-2
_version_ 1782119994496122880
author Amorim, Maria Luís
Cabeda, José Manuel
Seca, Rui
Mendes, Ana Constança
Castro, Ana Paula
Amorim, José Manuel
author_facet Amorim, Maria Luís
Cabeda, José Manuel
Seca, Rui
Mendes, Ana Constança
Castro, Ana Paula
Amorim, José Manuel
author_sort Amorim, Maria Luís
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: CMV is a major clinical problem in transplant recipients. Thus, it is important to use sensitive and specific diagnostic techniques to rapidly and accurately detect CMV infection and identify patients at risk of developing CMV disease. In the present study, CMV infection after liver transplantation was monitored retrospectively by two molecular biology assays - a quantitative PCR assay and a qualitative NASBA assay. The results were compared with those obtained by prospective pp65 antigenemia determinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 87 consecutive samples from 10 liver transplanted patients were tested for CMV by pp65 antigenemia, and CMV monitor and NASBA pp67 mRNA assay. RESULTS: CMV infection was detected in all patients by antigenemia and CMV monitor, whereas NASBA assay identified only 8/10 patients with viremia. Furthermore, CMV infection was never detected earlier by molecular biology assays than by antigenemia. Only 5/10 patients with CMV infection developed CMV disease. Using a cut off value of 8 cells/50,000, antigenemia was found to be the assay that better identified patients at risk of developing CMV disease. However, the kinetics of the onset of infection detected by NASBA and CMV monitor seemed to have better identified patients at risk of developing CMV disease. Furthermore, before onset of disease, CMV pp67 mRNA was found to have similar or better negative and positive predictive values for the development of CMV disease. CONCLUSIONS: The present data, suggests that the concomitant use of antigenemia and pp67 mRNA assay gives the best identification of patients at risk of developing CMV disease.
format Text
id pubmed-32208
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2001
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-322082001-06-06 CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays Amorim, Maria Luís Cabeda, José Manuel Seca, Rui Mendes, Ana Constança Castro, Ana Paula Amorim, José Manuel BMC Infect Dis Methodology Article BACKGROUND: CMV is a major clinical problem in transplant recipients. Thus, it is important to use sensitive and specific diagnostic techniques to rapidly and accurately detect CMV infection and identify patients at risk of developing CMV disease. In the present study, CMV infection after liver transplantation was monitored retrospectively by two molecular biology assays - a quantitative PCR assay and a qualitative NASBA assay. The results were compared with those obtained by prospective pp65 antigenemia determinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 87 consecutive samples from 10 liver transplanted patients were tested for CMV by pp65 antigenemia, and CMV monitor and NASBA pp67 mRNA assay. RESULTS: CMV infection was detected in all patients by antigenemia and CMV monitor, whereas NASBA assay identified only 8/10 patients with viremia. Furthermore, CMV infection was never detected earlier by molecular biology assays than by antigenemia. Only 5/10 patients with CMV infection developed CMV disease. Using a cut off value of 8 cells/50,000, antigenemia was found to be the assay that better identified patients at risk of developing CMV disease. However, the kinetics of the onset of infection detected by NASBA and CMV monitor seemed to have better identified patients at risk of developing CMV disease. Furthermore, before onset of disease, CMV pp67 mRNA was found to have similar or better negative and positive predictive values for the development of CMV disease. CONCLUSIONS: The present data, suggests that the concomitant use of antigenemia and pp67 mRNA assay gives the best identification of patients at risk of developing CMV disease. BioMed Central 2001-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC32208/ /pubmed/11389774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-1-2 Text en Copyright © 2001 Amorim et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Methodology Article
Amorim, Maria Luís
Cabeda, José Manuel
Seca, Rui
Mendes, Ana Constança
Castro, Ana Paula
Amorim, José Manuel
CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays
title CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays
title_full CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays
title_fullStr CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays
title_full_unstemmed CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays
title_short CMV infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays
title_sort cmv infection of liver transplant recipients: comparison of antigenemia and molecular biology assays
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC32208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11389774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-1-2
work_keys_str_mv AT amorimmarialuis cmvinfectionoflivertransplantrecipientscomparisonofantigenemiaandmolecularbiologyassays
AT cabedajosemanuel cmvinfectionoflivertransplantrecipientscomparisonofantigenemiaandmolecularbiologyassays
AT secarui cmvinfectionoflivertransplantrecipientscomparisonofantigenemiaandmolecularbiologyassays
AT mendesanaconstanca cmvinfectionoflivertransplantrecipientscomparisonofantigenemiaandmolecularbiologyassays
AT castroanapaula cmvinfectionoflivertransplantrecipientscomparisonofantigenemiaandmolecularbiologyassays
AT amorimjosemanuel cmvinfectionoflivertransplantrecipientscomparisonofantigenemiaandmolecularbiologyassays