4.7 Article

Comparison of LightCycler-based PCR, COBAS Amplicor CMV monitor, and pp65 antigenemia assays for quantitative measurement of cytomegalovirus viral load in peripheral blood specimens from patients after solid organ transplantation

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 7, Pages 3167-3174

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.7.3167-3174.2003

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to evaluate the LightCycler-based PCR (LC-PCR) as a diagnostic assay technique, a classical pp65 antigenemia assay and the commercially available COBAS Amplicor CMV Monitor (CACM) assay were compared to the LC-PCR assay for the detection and quantitation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) load in 404 parallel specimens of peripheral blood from 66 patients after solid organ transplantation. A good correlation existed among these three assays (r congruent to 0.6, P < 0.0001). The LC-PCR assay was the most sensitive (54% of specimens positive) compared to the CACM (48.6%) and the pp65 antigenemia (26%) assays. The LC-PCR assay detected all samples found positive by using both the CMV pp65 antigenemia assay and the CACM assay. The LC-PCR also had the widest dynamic range (from 250 to 107 DNA copies/ml of plasma). No cross-reactions were found among CMV and Epstein-Barr virus, varicella-zoster virus, or herpes simplex virus in the LC-PCR by using amplification with specifically designed primer pairs. Precision, expressed as the coefficient of variation, was < 3% with standard DNA from cell cultures and between 6.55 and 14.1% with clinical specimens in repeat LC-PCR runs. One run of the LC-PCR took half of the time required for the semiautomated CACM procedure. Because of its sensitivity, specificity, cost-effectiveness, and simplicity, the LC-PCR assay could replace the pp65 antigenemia and the CACM assays as the preferred technique for the surveillance, diagnosis, and monitoring of response of CMV diseases in high-risk populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available