巨细胞病毒核酸和抗体检测在不同特征患者中的一致性分析及临床指导意义

目的: 探讨巨细胞病毒(cytomegalovirus,CMV)脱氧核糖核酸(deoxyribo nucleic acid,DNA)检测和免疫球蛋白M(immunoglobulin M,IgM)抗体检测在不同特征患者中的一致性及对临床工作的指导价值。方法: 2014年12月至2019年11月期间,北京大学国际医院检验科同时进行CMV-IgM抗体和CMV-DNA检测的患者共计507例,收集患者性别、年龄一般资料,同时收集患者的诊断、用药及转归等临床资料。根据患者CMV-DNA阴性或阳性、CMV-IgM抗体阴性或阳性,以及年龄、性别和是否接受免疫抑制治疗进行分组和分层,组别之间率的比较采用Pearson卡方检验或Fisher精确经验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果: 507例送检患者中,CMV-DNA阳性患者55例(10.85%),CMV-IgM抗体阳性患者74例(14.60%),CMV-DNA和CMV-IgM抗体同时阳性患者20例(3.94%)。55例CMV-DNA阳性患者中,男性37例(67.27%),60岁以上者25例(45.45%),接受免疫抑制治疗者33例(60%),均高于CMV-DNA阴性组的47.35%(P=0.005)、31.86%(P=0.043)和46.02%(P=0.050)。CMV-DNA和IgM抗体双阳性患者中45%接受免疫抑制治疗,低于CMV-DNA阳性但IgM抗体阴性患者(68.57%,P=0.086),也低于CMV-DNA阴性但IgM抗体阳性患者(68.52%,P=0.064)。CMV-DNA和IgM抗体双阳性患者接受更昔洛韦治疗后91.67%出现好转,而CMV-DNA阳性但IgM抗体阴性患者的好转率仅为60%(P=0.067)。结论: CMV-IgM抗体检测受到年龄、性别、免疫状态等影响,不推荐对存在免疫抑制状态和年龄大于60岁的患者单独采用CMV-IgM抗体检测判断CMV感染;CMV-DNA和CMV-IgM抗体联合检测可能有助于预判患者的免疫状态和抗病毒治疗的结局转归。

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.