This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barrett-Muir, W. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Breuer, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barrett-Muir, W. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Breuer, J.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 1998, p. 2554-2556, Vol. 36, No. 9
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

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

Winsome Y. Barrett-Muir,1,* Celia Aitken,1 Kate Templeton,1 Martin Raftery,2 Steve M. Kelsey,3 and Judy Breuer1

Departments of Clinical Virology,1 Nephrology,2 and Haematology,3 Royal Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

Received 3 March 1998/Returned for modification 9 April 1998/Accepted 14 June 1998

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.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Clinical Virology, Royal Hospitals NHS Trust, Whitechapel, London E1 1BB, United Kingdom. Phone: 44 171 377 7141. Fax: 44 171 377 5784. E-mail: W.Y.Barrett-Muir{at}mds.qmw.ac.uk.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 1998, p. 2554-2556, Vol. 36, No. 9
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Solano, C., Munoz, I., Gutierrez, A., Farga, A., Prosper, F., Garcia-Conde, J., Navarro, D., Gimeno, C. (2001). Qualitative Plasma PCR Assay (AMPLICOR CMV Test) versus pp65 Antigenemia Assay for Monitoring Cytomegalovirus Viremia and Guiding Preemptive Ganciclovir Therapy in Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39: 3938-3941 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»