Adeline Baron1, Albane Gicquel1, Jean-Christophe Plantier2, Marie Gueudin1. 1. CHU de Rouen, Laboratoire de Virologie, F-76000 Rouen, France. 2. CHU de Rouen, Laboratoire de Virologie, F-76000 Rouen, France. Electronic address: jean-christophe.plantier@chu-rouen.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viral loads is commonly used to monitor posttransplant patients. Two new systems (eMAG/eSTREAM and Versant/kPCR) have been recently commercialized. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of four systems to quantify CMV and EBV in whole blood. STUDY DESIGN: Three extraction and real-time PCR amplification systems: m2000SP/RT (M2000), eMAG/eSTREAM (EMAG), and Versant/kPCR (KPCR) were compared with our routine system Qiasymphony/RGQ (QS/RGQ). The 4 systems were tested using 3 dilutions in triplicate according to the WHO international standard (WHO-IS) for intra-assay reproducibility; 56 whole blood samples (24 patients, 4 follow-ups) for CMV and 45 samples (27 patients, 3 follow-ups) for EBV. RESULTS: For CMV, the mean of the WHO-IS (expected value: 4.7 Log IU/ml) was: QS/RGQ=4.84, M2000=4.61, EMAG=4.33, and KPCR=4.79. One patient (10 samples) presented a major underquantification by QS/RGQ. Of the 46 remaining samples, 41 were quantified with QS/RGQ, 43 with M2000, 33 with EMAG and 24 with KPCR. For EBV, the mean of the WHO-IS was: QS/RGQ=4.70, M2000=4.61, EMAG=4.62, and KPCR=4.57. Among the 45 samples, 43 were quantified with QS/RGQ, 39 with M2000, 40 with EMAG and 32 with KPCR. CONCLUSION: The results obtained with the WHO-IS were very good. The results of patients' samples were well correlated with the announced sensitivity of each system. The elevated threshold of the KPCR CMV assay may be problematic for the follow-up of highly immunocompromised patients who require early introduction of treatment.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viral loads is commonly used to monitor posttransplant patients. Two new systems (eMAG/eSTREAM and Versant/kPCR) have been recently commercialized. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of four systems to quantify CMV and EBV in whole blood. STUDY DESIGN: Three extraction and real-time PCR amplification systems: m2000SP/RT (M2000), eMAG/eSTREAM (EMAG), and Versant/kPCR (KPCR) were compared with our routine system Qiasymphony/RGQ (QS/RGQ). The 4 systems were tested using 3 dilutions in triplicate according to the WHO international standard (WHO-IS) for intra-assay reproducibility; 56 whole blood samples (24 patients, 4 follow-ups) for CMV and 45 samples (27 patients, 3 follow-ups) for EBV. RESULTS: For CMV, the mean of the WHO-IS (expected value: 4.7 Log IU/ml) was: QS/RGQ=4.84, M2000=4.61, EMAG=4.33, and KPCR=4.79. One patient (10 samples) presented a major underquantification by QS/RGQ. Of the 46 remaining samples, 41 were quantified with QS/RGQ, 43 with M2000, 33 with EMAG and 24 with KPCR. For EBV, the mean of the WHO-IS was: QS/RGQ=4.70, M2000=4.61, EMAG=4.62, and KPCR=4.57. Among the 45 samples, 43 were quantified with QS/RGQ, 39 with M2000, 40 with EMAG and 32 with KPCR. CONCLUSION: The results obtained with the WHO-IS were very good. The results of patients' samples were well correlated with the announced sensitivity of each system. The elevated threshold of the KPCR CMV assay may be problematic for the follow-up of highly immunocompromised patients who require early introduction of treatment.