Misner, Lori

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.

ABSTRACT Serologic evaluation for Zika virus (ZIKV) infection currently includes an initial screen using an anti-ZIKV IgM antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA) followed by supplemental testing of specimens with nonnegative results by a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). We compared the performance characteristics of three ELISAs for the detection of IgM class antibodies to ZIKV, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Zika MAC-ELISA, the InBios ZIKV Detect MAC-ELISA, and the Euroimmun anti-Zika Virus IgM ELISA. Additionally, we present our initial experiences with ZIKV serologic testing from a national reference laboratory perspective. Using both retrospectively and prospectively collected specimens from patients with possible ZIKV infection, we show that the CDC and InBios MAC-ELISAs perform comparably to each other, with positive agreement, negative agreement, and interrater kappa values ranging from 87.5% to 93.1%, 95.7% to 98.5%, and 0.52 to 0.83, respectively. In contrast, comparison of the Euroimmun ZIKV ELISA to either the CDC or InBios MAC-ELISAs resulted in positive agreement, negative agreement, and interrater kappa values ranging from 17.9% to 42.9%, 91.7% to 98.6%, and 0.10 to 0.39, respectively. Among the 19 prospective samples submitted for PRNT, nine were negative, eight specimens had neutralizing antibodies to a flavivirus (unable to be identified), and one sample each was confirmed for ZIKV or dengue virus infection. This study highlights the ongoing challenges associated with serologic diagnosis of ZIKV infection. Although the availability of a commercial serologic test for ZIKV has greatly expanded the national capacity for such testing, the need to further characterize and improve these assays, particularly with regard to specificity, remains.