4.6 Article

Interlaboratory Comparison of Cytomegalovirus Viral Load Assays

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 258-268

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02513.x

Keywords

CMV; interlaboratory variation; quantitative NAT (QNAT); standardization; viral load

Funding

  1. American Society of Transplantation
  2. Canadian Society of Transplantation by Roche Canada
  3. Emory Center for AIDS Research [P30 AI050409]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To assess interlaboratory variability in qualitative and quantitative cytomegalovirus (CMV) viral load (VL) testing, we distributed a panel of samples to 33 laboratories in the USA, Canada and Europe who performed testing using commercial reagents (n = 17) or laboratory-developed assays (n = 18). The panel included two negatives, seven samples constructed from purified CMV nucleocapsids in plasma (2.0-6.0 log(10) copies/mL) and three clinical plasma samples. Interlaboratory variation was observed in both actual (range, 2.0-4.0 log(10) copies/mL) and self-reported lower limits of detection (range, 1.0-4.0 log(10) copies/mL). Variation observed in reported results for individual samples ranged from 2.0 log(10) (minimum) to 4.3 log(10) (maximum)(.) Variation was greatest at low VLs. Assuming +/- 0.5 log(10) relative to the expected result represents an acceptable result, 57.6% of results fell within this range. Use of commercially available reagents and procedures was associated with less variability compared with laboratory-developed assays. Interlaboratory variability on replicate samples was significantly greater than intralaboratory variability (p < 0.0001). The significant interlaboratory variability in CMV VL observed may be impacting patient care and limiting interinstitutional comparisons. The creation of an international reference standard for CMV VL assay calibration would be an important step in quality improvement of this laboratory tool.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available