ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common agents of infection in solid organ transplant patients, with significant morbidity and mortality. Objective: This study aimed to establish a threshold for initiation of preemptive treatment. In addition, the study compared the performance of antigenemia with qPCR results. Study design: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in 2017 in a single kidney transplant center in Brazil. Clinical validation was performed by comparing in-house qPCR results, against standard of care at that time (Pp65 CMV Antigenemia). ROC curve analysis was performed to determine the ideal threshold for initiation of preemptive therapy based on the qPCR test results. Results: Two hundred and thirty two samples from 30 patients were tested with both antigenemia and qPCR, from which 163 (70.26%) were concordant (Kappa coefficient: 0.435, p<0.001; Spearman correlation: 0.663). PCR allowed for early diagnoses. The median number of days for the first positive result was 50 (range, 24-105) for antigenemia and 42 (range, 24-74) for qPCR (p<0.001). ROC curve analysis revealed that at a threshold of 3,430 IU/mL (Log 3.54), qPCR had a sensitivity of 97.06% and a specificity of 74.24% (AUC 0.92617 ± 0.0185, p<0.001), in the prediction of 10 cells/105 leukocytes by antigenemia and physician's decision to treat. Conclusions: CMV Pp65 antigenemia and CMV qPCR showed fair agreement and a moderate correlation in this study. The in-house qPCR was revealed to be an accurate method to determine CMV DNAemia in kidney transplant patients, resulting in positive results weeks before antigenemia.
Resumo Introdução: Citomegalovírus (CMV) é um dos agentes infecciosos mais comuns em pacientes com transplante de órgãos sólidos, com morbidade e mortalidade significativas. Objetivo: Este estudo visou estabelecer um limite para o início do tratamento preemptivo. Além disso, comparou o desempenho da antigenemia com os resultados da qPCR in house. Desenho do estudo: Este foi um estudo de coorte prospectivo realizado em 2017 em um centro único de transplante renal no Brasil. A validação clínica foi realizada comparando resultados de qPCR in house, com o padrão de atendimento na época (Antigenemia para CMV Pp65). A análise da curva ROC foi realizada para determinar o limite ideal para o início da terapia preemptiva baseado nos resultados do teste qPCR in house. Resultados: 232 amostras de 30 pacientes foram testadas com antigenemia e qPCR, das quais 163 (70,26%) foram concordantes (Coeficiente Kappa: 0,435, p<0,001; Correlação Spearman: 0,663). PCR permitiu diagnósticos precoces. O número médio de dias para o primeiro resultado positivo foi 50 (intervalo, 24-105) para antigenemia e 42 (intervalo, 24-74) para qPCR (p<0,001). A análise da curva ROC revelou que em um limite de 3.430 UI/mL (Log 3,54), qPCR teve sensibilidade de 97,06% e especificidade de 74,24% (AUC 0,92617 ± 0,0185, p<0,001), na previsão de 10 células/10(5) leucócitos por antigenemia e na decisão do médico de tratar. Conclusões: Antigenemia para CMV Pp65 e qPCR para CMV mostraram uma concordância aceitável e uma correlação moderada neste estudo. qPCR in house revelou-se um método preciso para determinar DNAemia do CMV em pacientes transplantados renais, obtendo resultados positivos semanas antes da antigenemia.
Subject(s)
Humans , Kidney Transplantation , Cytomegalovirus Infections/diagnosis , World Health Organization , DNA, Viral , Prospective Studies , Viral Load , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Antigens, ViralABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common agents of infection in solid organ transplant patients, with significant morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish a threshold for initiation of preemptive treatment. In addition, the study compared the performance of antigenemia with qPCR results. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in 2017 in a single kidney transplant center in Brazil. Clinical validation was performed by comparing in-house qPCR results, against standard of care at that time (Pp65 CMV Antigenemia). ROC curve analysis was performed to determine the ideal threshold for initiation of preemptive therapy based on the qPCR test results. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty two samples from 30 patients were tested with both antigenemia and qPCR, from which 163 (70.26%) were concordant (Kappa coefficient: 0.435, p<0.001; Spearman correlation: 0.663). PCR allowed for early diagnoses. The median number of days for the first positive result was 50 (range, 24-105) for antigenemia and 42 (range, 24-74) for qPCR (p<0.001). ROC curve analysis revealed that at a threshold of 3,430 IU/mL (Log 3.54), qPCR had a sensitivity of 97.06% and a specificity of 74.24% (AUC 0.92617 ± 0.0185, p<0.001), in the prediction of 10 cells/105 leukocytes by antigenemia and physician's decision to treat. CONCLUSIONS: CMV Pp65 antigenemia and CMV qPCR showed fair agreement and a moderate correlation in this study. The in-house qPCR was revealed to be an accurate method to determine CMV DNAemia in kidney transplant patients, resulting in positive results weeks before antigenemia.
Subject(s)
Cytomegalovirus Infections , Kidney Transplantation , Antigens, Viral , Cytomegalovirus Infections/diagnosis , DNA, Viral , Humans , Prospective Studies , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Viral Load , World Health OrganizationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Limited data is available regarding the frequency of COVID-19 in populations that are highly exposed to SARS-CoV-2. In this cross-section study we evaluated COVID-19 seroprevalence in military police forces of 10 major cities in Rio Grande do Sul, South of Brazil. METHODS: Sampling was randomly performed in clusters, in respect to the number of professionals at service per city and military unit. Research subjects were evaluated on July 23, 2020 (first wave peak in Brazil). Clinical information was obtained, and venous blood was taken for ELISA testing (IgA, and IgG antibodies). Sample size consisted of 1,592 military workers (33.6% of study population). They were mostly man (81.2%) and young (median 34 years-old). Most had been asymptomatic (75.3%) during pandemic, and 27.5% reported close contact with COVID-19 cases (after a median time of 21 days). Antibodies were detected in 3.3% of the participants, mostly IgA (2.7%), and IgG (1.7%). After 3 weeks, 66.7% of IgA and IgG results turned negative, in addition to 78.3% and 100% of borderline IgA and IgG results, respectively. CONCLUSION: The seroprevalence of COVID-19 amongst military police was at least 3.4 higher than the findings of other studies performed in the general population, in the same cities and dates. Most detectable antibodies were of IgA class, which implies recent exposure. Asymptomatic people were more prone to have negative antibody titters in the second run.
