Beito, E. M.

AbstractIntroductionCytomegalovirus (CMV) causes significant morbidity in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). Measuring cell‐mediated immunity (CMI) may inform the risk of CMV infection after antiviral prophylaxis and predict relapse after CMV treatment.MethodsWe serially assessed CMV CMI using the QuantiFERON‐CMV assay (QF‐CMV; Qiagen, Germantown, MD) in two cohorts of SOTRs: during valganciclovir prophylaxis and during treatment of CMV viremia. Results of CMI were correlated with post‐prophylaxis CMV infection and post‐treatment relapse, respectively.ResultsOnly one (4.2%) of 24 CMV D+/R‐ patients demonstrated positive QF‐CMV by the end of valganciclovir prophylaxis. Four (16.6%) patients developed post‐prophylaxis CMV infection; all four had undetectable QF‐CMV at end of prophylaxis. Among 20 patients treated for CMV infection, 18 (90%) developed QF‐CMV levels >.2 IU/mL by end of antiviral treatment and none developed CMV relapse. In contrast, the single patient who relapsed after completing treatment had a CMV CMI <.2 IU/ml (p = .0036).ConclusionSince CMV D+/R‐ SOTRs are unlikely to develop adequate CMV CMI while receiving valganciclovir prophylaxis, the utility of CMV CMI monitoring for risk stratification during time of prophylaxis had limited value. Conversely, CMV CMI testing may be a useful marker of the risk of CMV relapse after antiviral treatment.

ABSTRACTConventional methods for the detection of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific antibodies include the immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA). While sensitive and specific, these methods are labor-intensive and require separate assays for each analyte. This study evaluated the performance of a multiplex bead assay (BioPlex 2200; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) for the simultaneous detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM class antibodies to the EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA) and IgG class antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA-1). Serum specimens (n= 1,315) submitted for routine EBV-specific antibody testing by EIA (Grifols-Quest, Inc., Miami, FL) were also tested by the multiplex bead assay using the BioPlex 2200 automated analyzer. Specimens showing discordant results were tested by IFA. Following IFA resolution, the BioPlex VCA IgM, VCA IgG, and EBNA-1 IgG assays demonstrated 97.9%, 91.4%, and 96.9% agreement, respectively, with the results obtained by EIA. Furthermore, the BioPlex assays showed an overall agreement of 94.1% with the EIA when the specimens were categorized by disease state (susceptible, acute, or past infection) based on the EBV-specific antibody profiles. These findings indicate that the BioPlex EBV assays demonstrate a performance comparable to that of the conventional EIA, while allowing for a more rapid (2.3 h for 100 samples versus 4.5 h by the EIA) and higher-throughput (∼400 samples per 9 h versus 200 samples by the EIA) analysis of the EBV-specific antibody response.

ABSTRACT The diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) is commonly made by serologic testing with Western blot (WB) analysis serving as an important supplemental assay. Although specific, the interpretation of WBs for diagnosis of LB (i.e., Lyme WBs) is subjective, with considerable variability in results. In addition, the processing, reading, and interpretation of Lyme WBs are laborious and time-consuming procedures. With the need for rapid processing and more objective interpretation of Lyme WBs, we evaluated the performances of two automated interpretive systems, TrinBlot/BLOTrix (Trinity Biotech, Carlsbad, CA) and BeeBlot/ViraScan (Viramed Biotech AG, Munich, Germany), using 518 serum specimens submitted to our laboratory for Lyme WB analysis. The results of routine testing with visual interpretation were compared to those obtained by BLOTrix analysis of MarBlot immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG and by ViraScan analysis of ViraBlot and ViraStripe IgM and IgG assays. BLOTrix analysis demonstrated an agreement of 84.7% for IgM and 87.3% for IgG compared to visual reading and interpretation. ViraScan analysis of the ViraBlot assays demonstrated agreements of 85.7% for IgM and 94.2% for IgG, while ViraScan analysis of the ViraStripe IgM and IgG assays showed agreements of 87.1 and 93.1%, respectively. Testing by the automated systems yielded an average time savings of 64 min/run compared to processing, reading, and interpretation by our current procedure. Our findings demonstrated that automated processing and interpretive systems yield results comparable to those of visual interpretation, while reducing the subjectivity and time required for Lyme WB analysis.