Comparison between Immunocytochemical and Immunofluorescence techniques for Cytomegalovirus Antigenemia Detection in Transplant Recipients

Authors

  • Regina Barbosa Schroeder Programa de Pós-Graduação em Patologia – Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre – Porto Alegre/RS- Brasil/ Laboratório de Imunologia de Transplantes – Santa Casa de Porto Alegre– Porto Alegre/RS- Brasil.
  • Tatiana Michelon Programa de Pós-Graduação em Patologia – Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre – Porto Alegre/RS- Brasil/ Laboratório de Imunologia de Transplantes – Santa Casa de Porto Alegre– Porto Alegre/RS- Brasil.
  • João Wurdig Laboratório de Imunologia de Transplantes – Santa Casa de Porto Alegre– Porto Alegre/RS- Brasil.
  • Elizete Keitel Programa de Pós-Graduação em Patologia – Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre – Porto Alegre/RS- Brasil.
  • Jorge Neumann Laboratório de Imunologia de Transplantes – Santa Casa de Porto Alegre– Porto Alegre/RS- Brasil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53855/bjt.v12i2.261

Keywords:

Organ Transplantation, Cytomegalovirus Infections, Cytomegalovirus, Diagnosis, Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Organ Transplantation, Cytomegalovirus Infections, Cytomegalovirus, Diagnosis, Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Immunohistochemistry

Abstract

Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major cause for morbidity among immunossupressed patients in transplant recipients. CMV antigen detection in blood cells by antigenemia test is a good marker for viral reactivation, showing a high clinical correlation. Some improvements has occurred in the last years changing it from an in-house technique to a more practical and standardized test, by the use of commercial kits. Purpose: To make a comparison between immunocytochemical and immunofluorescence techniques to the CMV antigenemia detection in transplant recipients. Methods: It was studied 132 random blood samples from transplant patients, being routinely analyzed for CMV infection. They were simultaneously tested by two different commercial kits for pp65 antigenemia:

  1. Immunocytochemical (IHC), based on the antigen detection by an anti-alcaline-phosphatase reaction [APAAP-BIOTEST-Germany], and
  2. immunofluorescence (IF), detecting fluorescein positive reaction [BRITE TURBO-IQP-Netherland]. IHC was performed in previously isolated granulocytes by dextran gradient in a 6-hour turn, and IF was performed in total leukocytes spending about 2 hours. Results: Patients had 1±20.1 yeas old, and they were recipients of the following transplants: kidney (n=73; 55.3%), lung (n=34; 25.8%), liver (n=11; 8.3%), hematopoietic stem cell (n=7; 5.3%), kidney-pancreas (n=3; 2.3%) or heart (n=4; 3.0%). The median post-transplant follow-up at the time of the sample collection was 91 days (5 to 2,103 days). IHC technique showed 35.6% (n=47) of positive samples for CMV antigenemia. This rate was 38.6% (n=51) using IF. The median positive-cells was 4.0/100000 granulocytes by IHC (highest: 515 positive-granulocytes), and 5.0/200000 leukocytes by IF (highest: 682 positive-leukocytes). Disagreement occurred in 6 samples (4.5%): 5 IQ false-negative were positive by IF (median=1+cell/ 200000 leukocytes); and 1 false-negative case by IF with positive result when analyzed by IHC (1+cell/100000 granulocytes). The correlation was highly significant (P=0.000) between both techniques, whether among the positive tests (R=0.974) or in the general analysis (R=0.996). Conclusion: Immunocytochemical or immunofluoresce antigenemia is suitable to the pp65 CMV antigen detection in transplant recipients. Regarding the high correlation between them, IF has the advantage to be easier and faster.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2009-03-01

How to Cite

Schroeder, R. B. ., Michelon, T., Wurdig, J., Keitel, E., & Neumann, J. (2009). Comparison between Immunocytochemical and Immunofluorescence techniques for Cytomegalovirus Antigenemia Detection in Transplant Recipients. Brazilian Journal of Transplantation, 12(2), 1101–1104. https://doi.org/10.53855/bjt.v12i2.261

Issue

Section

Original Paper