[Comparison of Cytomegalovirus Polymerase Chain Reaction Test Results Obtained with Fully Automated Systems: Roche Cobas 6800 and Qiagen NeuMoDx Experience].

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 MICROBIOLOGY
Tuğba Bozdemir, Aylin Erman Daloğlu, Dilek Çolak, Nazlı Gürkan, Gözde Öngüt, Derya Mutlu
{"title":"[Comparison of Cytomegalovirus Polymerase Chain Reaction Test Results Obtained with Fully Automated Systems: Roche Cobas 6800 and Qiagen NeuMoDx Experience].","authors":"Tuğba Bozdemir, Aylin Erman Daloğlu, Dilek Çolak, Nazlı Gürkan, Gözde Öngüt, Derya Mutlu","doi":"10.5578/mb.20249727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Viral load monitoring is important in identifying patients at risk of developing cytomegalovirus (CMV) related complications after transplantation and for this purpose, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (Rt-qPCR) tests are most commonly used. The main problem in CMV DNA Rt-qPCR tests that make quantitative measurements is that there are significant differences in measurements performed with different kits in different laboratories. Comparability of viral load measurements between laboratories has increased with the introduction of quantitative PCR tests calibrated with the CMV International Quantitation Standard (IQS) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, quantitative agreement between measurements made with different kits has still not been fully achieved. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the quantitative compatibility between measurements made with Cobas 6800 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and NeuMoDx (Qiagen, Ann Arbor, USA) CMV DNA Rt-qPCR tests, which are fully automated new generation systems calibrated with the WHO CMV IQS. The results of 214 plasma samples, which were studied simultaneously with Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR and NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR tests were analyzed. In the tests, the extraction, amplification and detection stages were carried out fully automatically. CMV DNA was detected in 144 (67.28%) samples in both tests and was not detected in 53 (24.76%) samples. Incompatible results were obtained in a total of 17 (7.94%) samples. Good agreement was found between the qualitative results of both tests (kappa= 0.80, p< 0.001). When the quantitative results (n= 129) obtained in the dynamic measurement range of both tests were examined, the median viral load values measured by Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR and NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR tests were 513 IU/mL (range= 35-37000) and 741 IU/mL (range= 68-48978), respectively. According to the correlation analysis, a very strong correlation was found between the results of both tests (r= 0.94, p< 0.001). According to Bland-Altman analysis; the average difference between the results of the NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR test and the Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR test was found to be -0.14 log10 [standard deviation (SD)= 0.23] IU/mL and it was determined that the Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR test had lower measurements than the NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR test. In 120 of 129 samples (93%) whose results were within the dynamic measurement range of both tests, the measurement difference was within ± 0.5 log10 IU/mL and in 9 (7%), it was detected as more than ± 0.5 log10 (median 0.54 log10 IU/ml; range= 0.51-0.81). No measurement difference of more than ± 1.0 log10 was detected in any sample. In this study, quantitative agreement was found in the measurements made in plasma samples with the fully automated Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR and NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR tests calibrated with the CMV IQS. To the best of our knowledge, a study comparing viral load measurements made with Cobas 6800 and NeuMoDx fully automated systems in the detection of CMV DNA has not yet been conducted, and this is the first study on this subject.</p>","PeriodicalId":18509,"journal":{"name":"Mikrobiyoloji bulteni","volume":"58 3","pages":"284-292"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mikrobiyoloji bulteni","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5578/mb.20249727","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Viral load monitoring is important in identifying patients at risk of developing cytomegalovirus (CMV) related complications after transplantation and for this purpose, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (Rt-qPCR) tests are most commonly used. The main problem in CMV DNA Rt-qPCR tests that make quantitative measurements is that there are significant differences in measurements performed with different kits in different laboratories. Comparability of viral load measurements between laboratories has increased with the introduction of quantitative PCR tests calibrated with the CMV International Quantitation Standard (IQS) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, quantitative agreement between measurements made with different kits has still not been fully achieved. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the quantitative compatibility between measurements made with Cobas 6800 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and NeuMoDx (Qiagen, Ann Arbor, USA) CMV DNA Rt-qPCR tests, which are fully automated new generation systems calibrated with the WHO CMV IQS. The results of 214 plasma samples, which were studied simultaneously with Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR and NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR tests were analyzed. In the tests, the extraction, amplification and detection stages were carried out fully automatically. CMV DNA was detected in 144 (67.28%) samples in both tests and was not detected in 53 (24.76%) samples. Incompatible results were obtained in a total of 17 (7.94%) samples. Good agreement was found between the qualitative results of both tests (kappa= 0.80, p< 0.001). When the quantitative results (n= 129) obtained in the dynamic measurement range of both tests were examined, the median viral load values measured by Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR and NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR tests were 513 IU/mL (range= 35-37000) and 741 IU/mL (range= 68-48978), respectively. According to the correlation analysis, a very strong correlation was found between the results of both tests (r= 0.94, p< 0.001). According to Bland-Altman analysis; the average difference between the results of the NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR test and the Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR test was found to be -0.14 log10 [standard deviation (SD)= 0.23] IU/mL and it was determined that the Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR test had lower measurements than the NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR test. In 120 of 129 samples (93%) whose results were within the dynamic measurement range of both tests, the measurement difference was within ± 0.5 log10 IU/mL and in 9 (7%), it was detected as more than ± 0.5 log10 (median 0.54 log10 IU/ml; range= 0.51-0.81). No measurement difference of more than ± 1.0 log10 was detected in any sample. In this study, quantitative agreement was found in the measurements made in plasma samples with the fully automated Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR and NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR tests calibrated with the CMV IQS. To the best of our knowledge, a study comparing viral load measurements made with Cobas 6800 and NeuMoDx fully automated systems in the detection of CMV DNA has not yet been conducted, and this is the first study on this subject.

[巨细胞病毒聚合酶链反应检测结果与全自动系统检测结果的比较:罗氏 Cobas 6800 和 Qiagen NeuMoDx 的经验]。
病毒载量监测对于确定移植后有可能出现巨细胞病毒(CMV)相关并发症的患者非常重要,为此,最常用的是定量实时聚合酶链反应(Rt-qPCR)检测。CMV DNA 实时聚合酶链反应(Rt-qPCR)定量检测的主要问题是,不同实验室使用不同试剂盒进行的检测结果存在显著差异。随着根据世界卫生组织(WHO)制定的 CMV 国际定量标准(IQS)校准的定量 PCR 检测的推出,实验室间病毒载量测量的可比性得到了提高。然而,使用不同试剂盒进行的测量仍未完全达到定量一致。本研究旨在调查 Cobas 6800(罗氏诊断公司,德国曼海姆)和 NeuMoDx(Qiagen,美国安阿伯)CMV DNA Rt-qPCR 检测试剂盒测量结果之间的定量兼容性。对 214 份血浆样本的结果进行了分析,这些样本同时接受了 Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR 和 NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR 检测。在这些检测中,提取、扩增和检测阶段都是全自动进行的。在这两种检测方法中,有 144 个样本(67.28%)检测到了 CMV DNA,有 53 个样本(24.76%)未检测到 CMV DNA。共有 17 份(7.94%)样本的检测结果不一致。两种检测方法的定性结果具有良好的一致性(kappa= 0.80,p< 0.001)。如果对两种检测方法在动态测量范围内获得的定量结果(n= 129)进行检查,Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR 和 NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR 检测方法测得的病毒载量中位值分别为 513 IU/mL(范围= 35-37000)和 741 IU/mL(范围= 68-48978)。根据相关性分析,两种检测结果之间存在很强的相关性(r= 0.94,p< 0.001)。根据Bland-Altman分析,NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR检测结果与Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR检测结果的平均差异为-0.14 log10 [标准差(SD)= 0.23] IU/mL,并确定Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR检测结果低于NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR检测结果。在 129 份样本中,有 120 份样本(93%)的结果在两种检测方法的动态测量范围内,其测量差异在 ± 0.5 log10 IU/ml 以内,有 9 份样本(7%)的测量差异超过 ± 0.5 log10(中位数 0.54 log10 IU/ml;范围= 0.51-0.81)。在所有样本中均未发现测量值差异超过 ± 1.0 log10 的情况。在本研究中,全自动 Cobas 6800 CMV Rt-qPCR 和 NeuMoDx CMV Rt-qPCR 检测仪与 CMV IQS 校准血浆样本的定量测量结果一致。据我们所知,在检测 CMV DNA 时比较 Cobas 6800 和 NeuMoDx 全自动系统的病毒载量测量结果的研究还没有进行过,本研究是这方面的第一项研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Mikrobiyoloji bulteni
Mikrobiyoloji bulteni 生物-微生物学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
50
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Bulletin of Microbiology is the scientific official publication of Ankara Microbiology Society. It is published quarterly in January, April, July and October. The aim of Bulletin of Microbiology is to publish high quality scientific research articles on the subjects of medical and clinical microbiology. In addition, review articles, short communications and reports, case reports, editorials, letters to editor and other training-oriented scientific materials are also accepted. Publishing language is Turkish with a comprehensive English abstract. The editorial policy of the journal is based on independent, unbiased, and double-blinded peer-review. Specialists of medical and/or clinical microbiology, infectious disease and public health, and clinicians and researchers who are training and interesting with those subjects, are the target groups of Bulletin of Microbiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信