Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1998 Sep;36(9):2554-6.
doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.9.2554-2556.1998.

Evaluation of the murex hybrid capture cytomegalovirus DNA assay versus plasma PCR and shell vial assay for diagnosis of human cytomegalovirus viremia in immunocompromised patients

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of the murex hybrid capture cytomegalovirus DNA assay versus plasma PCR and shell vial assay for diagnosis of human cytomegalovirus viremia in immunocompromised patients

W Y Barrett-Muir et al. J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Sep.

Abstract

We evaluated a cytomegalovirus (CMV) 24-hour shell vial assay (SVA), the Murex Hybrid Capture CMV DNA assay (HCA), and a CMV plasma PCR for the detection of CMV viremia in renal and bone marrow transplant recipients and human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. CMV viremia was detected by at least one method in 125 of 317 evaluable samples (39.4%) from 78 patients and was detected in 19.8% of samples by SVA, 26.8% by HCA, and 32.2% by plasma PCR. There was moderate to substantial agreement between the results of the different tests (kappa coefficient = 0.415 to 0.631). However, HCA and plasma PCR were significantly more sensitive than SVA (P = 0.001 and P < 0.0001, respectively; McNemar's test), and plasma PCR was more sensitive than HCA (P = 0.031; McNemar's test). HCA and plasma PCR were more consistently positive than SVA during viremic episodes (P = 0.0002 and P < 0.0001, respectively; McNemar's test). The use of HCA or plasma PCR may therefore improve the diagnosis and management of CMV disease in susceptible patient groups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG. 1
FIG. 1
Agreement between SVA, HCA, and PCR results.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bankier A T, Beck S, Bohni R, Brown C M, Cerny R, Chee M S, Hutchinson III C A, Kouzarides T, Martignetti J A, Preddie E, Satchwell S C, Tomlinson P, Weston K M, Barrell B G. The DNA sequence of the human cytomegalovirus genome. DNA Seq. 1991;2:1–12. - PubMed
    1. Bek B, Boeckh M, Lepenies J, Bieniek B, Arasteh K, Heise W, Deppermann K-M, Bornhöft G, Stöffler-Meilicke M, Schuller I, Höffken G. High-level sensitivity of quantitative pp65 cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia assay for diagnosis of CMV disease in AIDS patients and follow-up. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:457–459. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Degré M, Bukholm G, Holter E, Müller F, Rollag H. Rapid detection of cytomegalovirus infection in immunocompromised patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1994;13:668–670. - PubMed
    1. Delgado R, Lumbreras C, Alba C, Pedraza M A, Otero J R, Gómez R, Moreno E, Noriega A R, Payá C V. Low predictive value of polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30:1876–1878. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Erice A, Holm M A, Gill P C, Henry S, Dirksen C L, Dunn D L, Hillam R P, Balfour H H., Jr Cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia assay is more sensitive than shell vial cultures for rapid detection of CMV in polymorphonuclear blood leukocytes. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30:2822–2825. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms