Suppr超能文献

比较巨细胞病毒(CMV)酶联免疫斑点和 CMV 定量干扰素γ释放分析在评估肾移植受者 CMV 感染风险中的作用。

Comparison of cytomegalovirus (CMV) enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot and CMV quantiferon gamma interferon-releasing assays in assessing risk of CMV infection in kidney transplant recipients.

机构信息

Department of Molecular Medicine, Padua General Hospital, University of Padua School of Medicine, Padua, Italy.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Aug;51(8):2501-7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00563-13. Epub 2013 May 15.

Abstract

Assessing cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) represents an appealing strategy for identifying transplant recipients at risk of infection. In this study, we compared two gamma interferon-releasing assays (IGRAs), Quantiferon-CMV and CMV enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISPOT), to determine the ability of each test to predict protective CMV-specific T-cell responses. Two hundred twenty-one Quantiferon-CMV and ELISPOT tests were conducted on 120 adult kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), including 100 CMV-seropositive transplant recipients (R+) and 20 CMV-seronegative transplant recipients of a CMV-positive donor (D+/R-). As a control cohort, 39 healthy adult subjects (including 33 CMV-seropositive and 6 CMV-seronegative subjects) were enrolled. CMV IgG serology was used as a reference for both tests. In the CMV-seropositive individuals, the ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV assays provided 46% concordance with the serology, 12% discordance, 18% disagreement between ELISPOT or Quantiferon-CMV and the serology, and 24% gray areas when one or both tests resulted in weak positives. None of the CMV-seronegative subjects showed detectable responses in the ELISPOT or the Quantiferon-CMV test. In transplant recipients, both the ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV assays positively correlated with each other and negatively correlated with CMV DNAemia in a significant way (P<0.05). During the antiviral prophylaxis, all 20 D+/R- KTRs we examined displayed undetectable Quantiferon-CMV and ELISPOT results, and there was no evidence of CMV seroconversion. The receiving operator curve (ROC) statistical analysis revealed similar specificities and sensitivities in predicting detectable viremia (areas under the curve [AUC], 0.66 and 0.62 for Quantiferon-CMV and ELISPOT, respectively). ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV values of >150 spots/200,000 peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and >1 to 6 IU gamma interferon (IFN-γ) were associated with protection from CMV infection (odds ratios [OR], 5 and 8.75, respectively). In transplant recipients, the two tests displayed similar abilities for predicting CMV infection. Both the ELISPOT and Quantiferon-CMV assays require several ameliorations to avoid false-negative results.

摘要

评估巨细胞病毒 (CMV)-特异性细胞介导免疫 (CMI) 是识别感染风险的移植受者的一种有吸引力的策略。在这项研究中,我们比较了两种伽马干扰素释放测定(IGRAs),即 Quantiferon-CMV 和 CMV 酶联免疫斑点(ELISPOT),以确定每种检测方法预测保护性 CMV 特异性 T 细胞反应的能力。对 120 名成年肾移植受者(KTR)进行了 221 次 Quantiferon-CMV 和 ELISPOT 检测,包括 100 名 CMV 血清阳性移植受者(R+)和 20 名 CMV 阳性供体的 CMV 血清阴性移植受者(D+/R-)。作为对照队列,纳入了 39 名健康成年受试者(包括 33 名 CMV 血清阳性和 6 名 CMV 血清阴性受试者)。CMV IgG 血清学用于两种检测方法的参考。在 CMV 血清阳性个体中,ELISPOT 和 Quantiferon-CMV 检测与血清学的一致性为 46%,不一致性为 12%,ELISPOT 或 Quantiferon-CMV 与血清学之间的不一致性为 18%,两者均为弱阳性时的灰色区域为 24%。在 CMV 血清阴性的受试者中,ELISPOT 或 Quantiferon-CMV 检测均未检测到可检测的反应。在移植受者中,ELISPOT 和 Quantiferon-CMV 检测均与彼此呈正相关,与 CMV DNAemia 呈负相关(P<0.05)。在抗病毒预防期间,我们检查的所有 20 名 D+/R- KTR 均显示 Quantiferon-CMV 和 ELISPOT 结果无法检测到,并且没有 CMV 血清转换的证据。接收者操作特征(ROC)统计分析显示,两种检测方法在预测可检测病毒血症方面具有相似的特异性和敏感性(曲线下面积[AUC],Quantiferon-CMV 和 ELISPOT 分别为 0.66 和 0.62)。ELISPOT 和 Quantiferon-CMV 值>150 个斑点/200,000 个外周血单核细胞(PBMC)和>1 至 6 IU 伽马干扰素(IFN-γ)与 CMV 感染的保护相关(比值比[OR]分别为 5 和 8.75)。在移植受者中,两种检测方法均具有预测 CMV 感染的相似能力。ELISPOT 和 Quantiferon-CMV 检测均需要进行一些改进以避免假阴性结果。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
CMV: Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy.巨细胞病毒:预防、诊断与治疗。
Am J Transplant. 2013 Feb;13 Suppl 3:24-40; quiz 40. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12006.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验