RESUMEN
We compared the pp65 antigen detection by an in house method (immunoperoxidase assay) and by a commercial kit (immunofluorescence assay) available for cytomegalovirus infection diagnosis in immunocompromised patients. Sixty-four blood samples were analyzed in duplicate for both techniques. Eight-six percent of the samples had concordant qualitative results. The discordant results occurred more frequently in samples with low quantity of positive cells. There were no significant differences with qualitative and quantitative results of the methods.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Citomegalovirus/diagnóstico , Citomegalovirus/inmunología , Huésped Inmunocomprometido/inmunología , Fosfoproteínas/análisis , Proteínas de la Matriz Viral/análisis , Adulto , Citomegalovirus/fisiología , Femenino , Técnica del Anticuerpo Fluorescente , Humanos , Técnicas para Inmunoenzimas , Masculino , Embarazo , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Replicación ViralRESUMEN
We compared the pp65 antigen detection by an in house method (immunoperoxidase assay) and by a commercial kit (immunofluorescence assay) available for cytomegalovirus infection diagnosis in immunocompromised patients. Sixty-four blood samples were analyzed in duplicate for both techniques. Eight-six percent of the samples had concordant qualitative results. The discordant results occurred more frequently in samples with low quantity of positive cells. There were no significant differences with qualitative and quantitative results of the methods.