Gliga Smaranda, Fiedler Melanie, Dornieden Theresa, Achterfeld Anne, Paul Andreas, Horn Peter A, Herzer Kerstin, Lindemann Monika
Institute for Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Virchowstraße 179, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Institute for Virology, University Hospital Essen, University Essen-Duisburg, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jan 25;9(2):88. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020088.
To estimate protection from (CMV) replication after solid organ transplantation, CMV serology has been considered insufficient and thus CMV immunity is increasingly assessed by cellular in vitro methods. We compared two commercially available IFN-γ ELISpot assays (T-Track CMV and T-SPOT) and an IFN-γ ELISA (QuantiFERON-CMV). Currently, there is no study comparing these three assays. The assays were performed in 56 liver transplant recipients at the end of antiviral prophylaxis and one month thereafter. In CMV high- or intermediate-risk patients the two ELISpot assays showed significant correlation ( < 0.0001, > 0.6) but the correlation of the ELISpot assays with QuantiFERON-CMV was weaker. Results of both ELISpot assays were similarly predictive of protection from CMV-DNAemia ≥500 copies/mL [CMV pp65 T-SPOT. at the end of prophylaxis: area under curve (AUC) = 0.744, cut-off 142 spot forming units (SFU), sensitivity set to 100%, specificity 46%; CMV IE-1 T-Track CMV at month 1: AUC = 0.762, cut-off 3.5 SFU, sensitivity set to 100%, specificity 59%]. The QuantiFERON-CMV assay was inferior, reaching a specificity of 23% when setting the sensitivity to 100%. In conclusion, both CMV-specific ELISpot assays appear suitable to assess protection from CMV infection/reactivation in liver transplant recipients.
为评估实体器官移植后对巨细胞病毒（CMV）复制的保护作用，CMV血清学检测被认为不够充分，因此越来越多地通过细胞体外方法评估CMV免疫。我们比较了两种市售的IFN-γ ELISpot检测方法（T-Track CMV和T-SPOT）以及一种IFN-γ ELISA方法（QuantiFERON-CMV）。目前，尚无比较这三种检测方法的研究。这些检测在56例肝移植受者抗病毒预防结束时及之后1个月进行。在CMV高风险或中风险患者中，两种ELISpot检测方法显示出显著相关性（<0.0001，>0.6），但ELISpot检测方法与QuantiFERON-CMV的相关性较弱。两种ELISpot检测方法的结果对预防CMV-DNA血症≥500拷贝/mL的保护作用具有相似的预测性[预防结束时CMV pp65 T-SPOT：曲线下面积（AUC）=0.744，临界值142斑点形成单位（SFU），敏感性设定为100%，特异性46%；第1个月时CMV IE-1 T-Track CMV：AUC = 0.762，临界值3.5 SFU，敏感性设定为100%，特异性59%]。QuantiFERON-CMV检测方法较差，将敏感性设定为100%时特异性为23%。总之，两种CMV特异性ELISpot检测方法似乎都适合评估肝移植受者对CMV感染/再激活的保护作用。
