Consistency analysis and clinical guiding significance of cytomegalovirus nucleic acid and antibody detections in patients with different clinical characteristics.
- Author:
Ju Hua DAI
1
;
Xin Ping SUN
1
;
Jie ZHANG
1
;
Lian Jie SHI
2
Author Information
1. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing 102206, China.
2. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing 102206, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Cytomegalovirus;
DNA;
Immunoglobulin M;
Immunosuppression
- MeSH:
Antibodies, Viral;
Cytomegalovirus/genetics*;
Cytomegalovirus Infections/drug therapy*;
DNA;
Female;
Humans;
Immunoglobulin M;
Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use*;
Male;
Nucleic Acids
- From:
Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences)
2022;54(2):267-271
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To investigate the consistency of cytomegalovirus deoxyribo nucleic acid (CMV-DNA) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody detections in patients with different clinical characteristics and their guiding value for clinical practice.
METHODS:From December 2014 to November 2019, a total of 507 patients who were detected with both CMV-IgM and CMV-DNA were collected in Peking University International Hospital. Their general information, such as gender, age and clinical data, including the patient's diagnosis, medication, and outcome were also collected. The groups were stratified according to whether CMV-DNA was negative or positive, CMV-IgM was negative or positive, age, gender, and whether they received immunosuppressive therapy or not. The Pearson Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of the rates between the groups. P < 0.05 means the difference is statisti-cally significant.
RESULTS:Of the 507 patients submitted for examination, 55 (10.85%) were positive for CMV-DNA, 74 (14.60%) were positive for CMV-IgM, and 20 (3.94%) were positive for both CMV-DNA and CMV-IgM. Of the 55 patients with CMV-DNA positive, 37 were male, accounting for 67.27%. In addition, 25 patients were older than 60 years, accounting for 45.45% and 33 patients received immunosuppressive therapy, accounting for 60%. The rates were higher than that of CMV-DNA negative group, 47.35% (P=0.005), 68.14% (P=0.043), 46.02% (P=0.050), respectively. Of the patients with both CMV-DNA and IgM positive, 45% received immunosuppressive threapy, which was lower than that of CMV-DNA positive but IgM negative patients (68.57%, P=0.086), and also lower than CMV-DNA negative but IgM positive patients (68.52%, P=0.064). In the patients with both CMV-DNA and IgM positive, 91.67% showed remission after receiving ganciclovir, whereas in the patients with CMV-DNA positive but IgM negative, the rate was only 60% (P=0.067).
CONCLUSION:CMV-IgM antibody detection is affected by age, gender, and immune status. It is not recommended to use CMV-IgM alone to determine CMV infection in patients with immunosuppressive status and those older than 60 years. CMV-DNA and CMV-IgM combined detection may help to predict patients' immune status and outcomes of antiviral therapy.
