Can measurement of maternal anti-cytomegalovirus immunoglobulin-M antibody levels be used to screen for cytomegalovirus infection in embryos and fetuses?

[Consistency analysis and clinical guiding significance of cytomegalovirus nucleic acid and antibody detections in patients with different clinical characteristics]

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.

Positive predictive values of CMV-IgM and importance of CMV-IgG avidity testing in detecting primary infection in three different clinical settings. A French retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) primary infection during pregnancy or in immunocompetent patients relies on serology with detection of specific CMV-IgG and IgM. In case of positive CMV-IgM in pregnant women, CMV-IgG avidity is now widely recommended, but in general population it is not currently performed.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to determine CMV-IgM positive predictive values (PPV) in different clinical settings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on positive CMV-IgM in our virology laboratory from 2013 to 2019, in three clinical groups: screening in non-symptomatic pregnant women (group 1), pregnant women with ultrasound (US) abnormalities (group 2) and patients (general population) with clinical signs suggestive of CMV primary infection (group 3). CMV-IgG avidity had been performed in all cases allowing to evaluate PPV of positive CMV-IgM to diagnose CMV primary-infection in each group.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2019, 6859 serum samples were found positive for CMV-IgM and had been tested for CMV-IgG avidity, with 6560 sera for group 1, 30 for group 2 and 269 for group 3. Overall, low avidity confirming primary infection was observed respectively in 16.4 % for group 1, 36.7 % for group 2, and 35.3 % for group 3. CMV-IgM PPV was significantly lower in group 1 compared to groups 2 (p = 0.01) and 3 (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Our observations highlight the major importance of including CMV-IgG avidity in the diagnostic algorithm, whatever the clinical situation (for immunocompetent patients), to confirm or exclude a recent CMV primary infection in case of positive CMV-IgM.

Performance of Zika Assays in the Context of Toxoplasma gondii, Parvovirus B19, Rubella Virus, and Cytomegalovirus (TORCH) Diagnostic Assays

Infections during pregnancy that may cause congenital abnormalities have been recognized for decades, but their diagnosis is challenging. This was again illustrated with the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV), highlighting the inherent difficulties in estimating the extent of pre- and postnatal ZIKV complications because of the difficulties in establishing definitive diagnoses. We reviewed the epidemiology, infection kinetics, and diagnostic methods used for Toxoplasma gondii, parvovirus B19, rubella virus, and cytomegalovirus (TORCH) infections and compared the results with current knowledge of ZIKV diagnostic assays to provide a basis for the inclusion of ZIKV in the TORCH complex evaluations. Similarities between TORCH pathogens and ZIKV support inclusion of ZIKV as an emerging TORCH infection. Our review evaluates the diagnostic performance of various TORCH diagnostic assays for maternal screening, fetal screening, and neonatal screening. We show that the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of TORCH complex pathogens are widely variable, stressing the importance of confirmatory testing and the need for novel techniques for earlier and accurate diagnosis of maternal and congenital infections. In this context it is also important to acknowledge different needs and access to care for different geographic and resource settings.