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

22Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barrett-Muir, W. Y., Aitken, C., Templeton, K., Raftery, M., Kelsey, S. M., & Breuer, J. (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. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 36(9), 2554–2556. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.9.2554-2556.1998

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free