BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in renal transplant recipients, remains of great importance. This prospective study was performed in kidney transplant recipients to determine the diagnostic value of the CMV antigenemia assay in comparison with polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, and shell vial assay. METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive renal transplant recipients were enrolled in this study and monitored by both antigenemia assay and serology. The initial 34 of the 75 patients were subjected to PCR and shell vial assay. RESULTS: Antigenemia, PCR, and shell vial assay became positive before the onset of CMV-related symptoms in 31/34 (89%), 13/16 (81%), and 2/16 (13%), respectively. None of the 34 patients who had symptomatic CMV disease showed a significant increase in IgG or IgM before the onset of symptoms. Antigenemia and PCR assays turned positive, 7 and 11 days (median), respectively, before the onset of clinical symptoms. Serology and shell vial assay became positive 21 and 25 days (median), respectively, after the onset of CMV-related clinical symptoms. To examine the clinical value of these assays, "good correlation" was defined based on the correlation between the clinical course and the results of the assays. Good correlation with the antigenemia assay was observed in 33 (96%) out of 34 renal transplant recipients who recovered from their CMV disease after ganciclovir therapy. Only one of 16 (7%) patients showed good correlation by shell vial assay, whereas PCR and serology did not show a good correlation. Consequently, antigenemia was considered the best way to monitor CMV infections after kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Only the CMV antigenemia assay can be successfully employed after renal transplantation for the early diagnosis and extensive monitoring of active CMV infection.
BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in renal transplant recipients, remains of great importance. This prospective study was performed in kidney transplant recipients to determine the diagnostic value of the CMV antigenemia assay in comparison with polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, and shell vial assay. METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive renal transplant recipients were enrolled in this study and monitored by both antigenemia assay and serology. The initial 34 of the 75 patients were subjected to PCR and shell vial assay. RESULTS: Antigenemia, PCR, and shell vial assay became positive before the onset of CMV-related symptoms in 31/34 (89%), 13/16 (81%), and 2/16 (13%), respectively. None of the 34 patients who had symptomatic CMV disease showed a significant increase in IgG or IgM before the onset of symptoms. Antigenemia and PCR assays turned positive, 7 and 11 days (median), respectively, before the onset of clinical symptoms. Serology and shell vial assay became positive 21 and 25 days (median), respectively, after the onset of CMV-related clinical symptoms. To examine the clinical value of these assays, "good correlation" was defined based on the correlation between the clinical course and the results of the assays. Good correlation with the antigenemia assay was observed in 33 (96%) out of 34 renal transplant recipients who recovered from their CMV disease after ganciclovir therapy. Only one of 16 (7%) patients showed good correlation by shell vial assay, whereas PCR and serology did not show a good correlation. Consequently, antigenemia was considered the best way to monitor CMV infections after kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Only the CMV antigenemia assay can be successfully employed after renal transplantation for the early diagnosis and extensive monitoring of active CMV infection.
Authors: A M Caliendo; R Schuurman; B Yen-Lieberman; S A Spector; J Andersen; R Manjiry; C Crumpacker; N S Lurain; A Erice Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: U Machida; M Kami; T Fukui; Y Kazuyama; M Kinoshita; Y Tanaka; Y Kanda; S Ogawa; H Honda; S Chiba; K Mitani; Y Muto; K Osumi; S Kimura; H Hirai Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: A M Caliendo; K St George; S Y Kao; J Allega; B H Tan; R LaFontaine; L Bui; C R Rinaldo Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Angela M Caliendo; Jessica Ingersoll; Andrea M Fox-Canale; Sabine Pargman; Tameka Bythwood; Mary K Hayden; James W Bremer; Nell S Lurain Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Erica D Greanya; Nilufar Partovi; Eric M Yoshida; R Jean Shapiro; Robert D Levy; Chris H Sherlock; Gwen M Stephens Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: X Bai; B B Rogers; P C Harkins; J Sommerauer; R Squires; K Rotondo; A Quan; D B Dawson; R H Scheuermann Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: D J Witt; M Kemper; A Stead; P Sillekens; C C Ginocchio; M J Espy; C V Paya; T F Smith; F Roeles; A M Caliendo Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.948