Transplantation Proceedings
Volume 39, Issue 9 , Pages 2748-2750, November 2007

Comparison of Serology Assays and Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Monitoring of Active Cytomegalovirus Infection in Renal Transplant Recipients

  • B. Naumnik

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nephrology and Transplantation with Dialysis Unit, Medical University, Bialystok, Poland
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Beata Naumnik, Department of Nephrology and Transplantation with Dialysis Unit, Medical University, 14 Zurawia St, 15-540 Białystok, Poland.
  • ,
  • J. Małyszko

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nephrology and Transplantation with Dialysis Unit, Medical University, Bialystok, Poland
  • ,
  • L. Chyczewski

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Molecular Biology, Medical University, Białystok, Poland.
  • ,
  • O. Kovalchuk

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Molecular Biology, Medical University, Białystok, Poland.
  • ,
  • J. Małyszko

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nephrology and Transplantation with Dialysis Unit, Medical University, Bialystok, Poland
  • ,
  • M. Myśliwiec

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nephrology and Transplantation with Dialysis Unit, Medical University, Bialystok, Poland

Abstract 

Background

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a common complication of renal transplantation. It can be diagnosed serologically, mainly based on seroconversion or by the detection of viral antigen via CMV-DNA amplification (polymerase chain reaction [PCR]).

Aim

We sought diagnosis of an active CMV infection in renal transplant patients comparing serologic assays of CMV-IgM antibodies with CMV-DNA amplification.

Methods

We retrospectively studied renal transplant recipients 26 (including 15 women) hospitalized with clinical suspicion of CMV disease. The diagnosis of CMV infection was suspected on the basis of nonspecific symptoms, including fever, leukopenia, hyperbilirubinemia, and alanine aminotransferase elevation, alone or in combination. At the time of admission, all patients were screened for CMV-IgM antibody (immunoassays AxSYM/IMx) and CMV-DNA (qualitative PCR).

Results

The confirmation of CMV infection by the two methods (immunoassay and PCR) was obtained in only three patients (11.5%), its unambiguous exclusion—in four cases (15.4%). Nineteen patients (73.1%) were positive for CMV-IgM and negative for CMV-DNA.

Conclusion

Detection of CMV-IgM antibodies by various immunoassays is not sensitive enough for diagnosis and cannot be used for monitoring during the active period in renal transplant recipients. This observation supported the prolonged presence of IgM antibodies after recent CMV infection in this patient group.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0041-1345(07)00979-7

doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.08.040

Transplantation Proceedings
Volume 39, Issue 9 , Pages 2748-2750, November 2007