4.1 Article

Clinical Usefulness of Plasma Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay: Diagnosis of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Kidney Transplant Recipients

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 43, 期 7, 页码 2624-2629

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.05.054

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Preemptive therapy is used to prevent cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in transplant recipients. The CMV antigenemia assay, which has been commonly used as a predictive marker for preemptive therapy, requires intensive labor and immediate processing. We compared the cutoff value of plasma CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with CMV antigenemia in kidney transplant recipients. Methods. We compared two diagnostic methods for CMV infection in kidney transplant recipients: quantitative PCR (qPCR) versus antigenemia. We evaluated the optimal cutoff value of plasma CMV qPCR by using receiver-operating characteristic curves for specific antigenemia values. All kidney transplant recipients from January 2004 to January 2005 were enrolled and followed with CMV antigenemia and plasma CMV qPCR. Results. The analyses were performed on 899 samples collected from 111 patients in the early posttransplant period, matching 84.1% of patients for the results of CMV antigenemia and plasma CMV qPCR. For patients with symptomatic CMV infection and disease, who showed >= 25 positive cells in the antigenemia assay, the cutoff value for qPCR was 17.8 copies/mu L with a sensitivity of 97.1%, a specificity of 89.1%, and a positive predictive value of 26.6%. Conclusions. Diagnostic assays for CMV such as CMV antigenemia and quantitative plasma PCR, showed similar diagnostic values. They are the methods of choice for the diagnosis and monitoring of active CMV infection after kidney transplantation. However, because of the relatively low positive predictive value of qPCR, this test may lead to unnecessary preemptive treatment in kidney transplant recipients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据