BACKGROUND: Human cytomegalovirus is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has proven to be a sensitive and effective technique in defining active cytomegalovirus infection, in addition to having low cost and being a useful test for situations in which there is no need for quantification. Real-time PCR has the advantage of quantification; however, the high cost of this methodology makes it impractical for routine use. OBJECTIVE: To apply a nested PCR assay to serum (sPCR) and to evaluate its efficiency to diagnose active cytomegalovirus infection compared with PCR of peripheral blood leukocytes (L-PCR). METHODS: Samples of 37 patients were prospectively evaluated. An internal control was created and applied to sPCR to exclude false-negative results. RESULTS: In total, 21 patients (57%) developed active cytomegalovirus infection. After analyzing the two methods for the diagnosis of active infection, higher sensitivity and negative predictive value of the L-PCR versus sPCR (100% versus 62%), and higher specificity and positive predictive value of sPCR versus L-PCR (81% versus 50% and 72%, respectively) were observed. Discordant results were observed in 11 patients who were L-PCR-positive but sPCR-negative for active cytomegalovirus infection, five of whom developed clinical symptoms of cytomegalovirus. Clinical symptoms were observed in 14 patients, 12 of whom were diagnosed with active infection by nested L-PCR (P=0.007) and seven by nested sPCR (P=0.02). Higher specificity and a positive predictive value for sPCR were observed. CONCLUSION: Nested L-PCR and sPCR were considered to be complementary methods for the diagnosis and management of symptomatic cytomegalovirus infection.
BACKGROUND:Human cytomegalovirus is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has proven to be a sensitive and effective technique in defining active cytomegalovirus infection, in addition to having low cost and being a useful test for situations in which there is no need for quantification. Real-time PCR has the advantage of quantification; however, the high cost of this methodology makes it impractical for routine use. OBJECTIVE: To apply a nested PCR assay to serum (sPCR) and to evaluate its efficiency to diagnose active cytomegalovirus infection compared with PCR of peripheral blood leukocytes (L-PCR). METHODS: Samples of 37 patients were prospectively evaluated. An internal control was created and applied to sPCR to exclude false-negative results. RESULTS: In total, 21 patients (57%) developed active cytomegalovirus infection. After analyzing the two methods for the diagnosis of active infection, higher sensitivity and negative predictive value of the L-PCR versus sPCR (100% versus 62%), and higher specificity and positive predictive value of sPCR versus L-PCR (81% versus 50% and 72%, respectively) were observed. Discordant results were observed in 11 patients who were L-PCR-positive but sPCR-negative for active cytomegalovirus infection, five of whom developed clinical symptoms of cytomegalovirus. Clinical symptoms were observed in 14 patients, 12 of whom were diagnosed with active infection by nested L-PCR (P=0.007) and seven by nested sPCR (P=0.02). Higher specificity and a positive predictive value for sPCR were observed. CONCLUSION: Nested L-PCR and sPCR were considered to be complementary methods for the diagnosis and management of symptomatic cytomegalovirus infection.
Authors: T H The; M van der Ploeg; A P van den Berg; A M Vlieger; M van der Giessen; W J van Son Journal: Transplantation Date: 1992-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Frank M Mattes; Emma G Hainsworth; Anna-Maria Geretti; Gaia Nebbia; Grant Prentice; Michael Potter; Andrew K Burroughs; Paul Sweny; Aycan F Hassan-Walker; Sylvester Okwuadi; Caroline Sabin; Geraldine Amooty; Vanessa S Brown; Sarah C Grace; Vincent C Emery; Paul D Griffiths Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Michael Boeckh; MeeiLi Huang; James Ferrenberg; Terry Stevens-Ayers; Laurence Stensland; W Garrett Nichols; Lawrence Corey Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: M M Abecassis; A J Koffron; B Kaplan; M Buckingham; J P Muldoon; A J Cribbins; D B Kaufman; J P Fryer; J Stuart; F P Stuart Journal: Transplantation Date: 1997-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: L Rasmussen; D Kelsall; R Nelson; W Carney; M Hirsch; D Winston; J Preiksaitis; T C Merigan Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 1982-02 Impact factor: 5.226