Diagnosing Acute CMV Infection: Methods and Clinical Significance

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a ubiquitous human virus that poses significant health risks, particularly to vulnerable populations. As the most prevalent congenital viral infection and a major cause of complications in immunocompromised individuals, prompt and accurate diagnosis of acute CMV infection is crucial for effective clinical management and improved patient outcomes. This article provides a comprehensive overview of current diagnostic methods for acute CMV infection, emphasizing their clinical applications and limitations.

Diagnostic Methods for CMV Infection

Effective diagnosis of acute CMV infection relies on a range of laboratory techniques, each with varying degrees of sensitivity, specificity, and clinical utility. These methods can be broadly categorized into serological assays, cell culture techniques, antigen detection, and nucleic acid amplification tests.

Serological Assays

Serology plays a role in identifying past CMV exposure and can offer clues about recent infection.

CMV IgG and IgM Antibodies

• IgG Antibodies: The presence of CMV IgG indicates prior infection and lifelong persistence of the virus. Various assays, including ELISA and immunofluorescence assays, are used to detect CMV IgG. While useful for determining seroprevalence, IgG detection alone is not indicative of acute infection.
• IgM Antibodies: CMV IgM antibodies are often associated with acute or recent infection. However, IgM assays have limitations in diagnosing acute primary infection due to:
  • False-positive results: Reactivity can occur due to other infections or non-specific reactions.
  • Persistence of IgM: IgM can remain detectable for months after primary infection.
  • Reactivation scenarios: IgM can reappear during CMV reactivation.
  • Variability in Assay Performance: Commercial IgM kits show inconsistent results, limiting their reliability for definitive acute infection diagnosis.

IgG Avidity Assays

To improve the differentiation between primary and non-primary CMV infection, IgG avidity assays are employed.

• Avidity Principle: These assays measure the binding strength (avidity) of IgG antibodies to CMV antigens. Low avidity antibodies are typically present in the initial months following primary infection, while avidity increases over time as the immune response matures. High avidity IgG indicates a more distant past infection.
• Clinical Application: IgG avidity is particularly useful in evaluating pregnant women, where differentiating primary infection from reactivation is critical for assessing fetal risk. However, avidity assays have limitations and are not always conclusive for acute infection diagnosis.

Cell Culture

Traditional cell culture remains a valuable method for CMV detection, particularly for congenital infection diagnosis.

Conventional Cell Culture

• Methodology: Clinical specimens are inoculated onto human fibroblast cells and monitored for the characteristic cytopathic effect (CPE) of CMV over several days or weeks. CPE is visualized as focal areas of enlarged, altered cells.
• Limitations: Conventional cell culture is slow, requiring up to 3 weeks for negative results, which delays diagnosis, especially in acute settings.

Shell Vial Assay

The shell vial assay is a rapid modification of cell culture, designed for faster CMV detection.

• Centrifugation-Amplification: This technique involves centrifuging the clinical specimen onto fibroblast cells grown on coverslips within vials or microplates. Centrifugation enhances viral adsorption and infectivity.
• Rapid Antigen Detection: After a shorter incubation period (e.g., 16 hours), CMV immediate-early (IE) antigens can be detected using monoclonal antibodies and immunofluorescence staining.
• Advantages: Shell vial assays provide results within 24-48 hours, significantly faster than conventional culture, making them more useful for timely diagnosis of acute infections.

Antigenemia Assay

The antigenemia assay is a semi-quantitative method for detecting CMV pp65 antigen in blood leukocytes, widely used for monitoring CMV viremia in immunocompromised patients.

pp65 Antigen Detection

• Methodology: This assay utilizes monoclonal antibodies to detect the CMV pp65 antigen, a viral structural protein expressed in leukocytes during active CMV replication. Peripheral blood leukocytes are prepared in a cytospin, and immunofluorescence staining is performed to quantify pp65-positive nuclei.
• Quantitative Nature: The antigenemia assay provides a semi-quantitative result, with the number of positive leukocyte nuclei correlating with viral load and disease severity in immunocompromised hosts.
• Limitations:
  • Labor-intensive and Subjective: The assay requires skilled personnel for performance and interpretation and is not easily automated.
  • Sample Processing Time: Samples must be processed within hours of collection to maintain sensitivity.
  • Neutropenia: False-negative results can occur in neutropenic patients due to insufficient leukocytes.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Amplification

PCR is a highly sensitive and rapid method for detecting CMV DNA, increasingly used for diagnosing and monitoring CMV infections across various patient populations. Real-time PCR allows for viral load quantification, crucial for managing acute CMV infections.

CMV DNA PCR

• Methodology: PCR assays amplify specific CMV DNA sequences from clinical specimens like blood, plasma, urine, or tissue. Common targets include immediate early and late antigen genes.
• Qualitative and Quantitative PCR:
  • Qualitative PCR: Detects the presence or absence of CMV DNA.
  • Quantitative PCR (Real-Time PCR): Measures the amount of CMV DNA (viral load), expressed as copies/mL. Quantitative PCR is essential for monitoring viral load dynamics in acute infections and assessing treatment response.
• Advantages:
  • High Sensitivity and Specificity: PCR is more sensitive than antigenemia and culture.
  • Rapid Turnaround Time: Results are available within hours.
  • Automation Potential: PCR can be automated for high throughput.
  • Versatile Specimens: Applicable to various clinical samples.
• Limitations:
  • Lack of Standardization: Variations in PCR protocols and viral load thresholds across different laboratories hinder data comparison and uniform clinical guidelines.
  • Cost: Generally more expensive than antigenemia.

Reverse Transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR)

RT-PCR detects viral mRNA transcripts, indicating active viral gene expression and potentially distinguishing between latent and active infection.

• mRNA Detection: RT-PCR targets CMV mRNA in leukocytes, independent of DNA presence.
• Clinical Correlation: The presence of CMV mRNA may correlate more closely with active disease than DNAemia alone.
• Sensitivity: Generally less sensitive than pp65 antigenemia and DNA PCR for diagnosing CMV disease.

Immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry is utilized for diagnosing CMV end-organ disease through direct detection of viral antigens in tissue samples.

Tissue Antigen Detection

• Methodology: Tissue biopsies or cytospin preparations of body fluids are stained with monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies against CMV early antigens. Visualization is achieved using fluorescent or enzyme-labeled secondary antibodies and microscopy.
• Specificity: Highly specific for CMV detection in tissue.
• Limitations:
  • Labor-intensive and Expertise-dependent: Requires skilled personnel for slide preparation and interpretation.
  • Sampling Error: False-negative results can occur due to uneven virus distribution in tissues.

Nucleic Acid Sequence-Based Amplification (NASBA)

NASBA is an isothermal RNA amplification method that can detect CMV mRNA, potentially offering enhanced sensitivity for active infection detection.

mRNA Amplification

• Methodology: NASBA specifically amplifies unspliced viral mRNAs (e.g., late pp67 mRNA) in a background of DNA.
• Potential Advantages:
  • High Sensitivity: Studies suggest NASBA may be more sensitive than antigenemia for detecting CMV in blood.
  • Sample Stability: Whole blood samples can be stored before testing.
  • Rapid Turnaround: Test completion within a day.
• Limitations:
  • mRNA Extraction: Time-consuming RNA extraction procedure.
  • Limited Clinical Data: Less extensive clinical validation compared to PCR and antigenemia, especially in immunocompromised patients.

Hybrid Capture Assay

The hybrid capture assay detects CMV DNA using RNA probes and signal amplification in an ELISA format, but its sensitivity is generally lower compared to amplification-based methods.

DNA Detection without Amplification

• Methodology: Uses RNA probes to bind CMV DNA, followed by antibody-based signal detection.
• Questionable Sensitivity: Lower sensitivity due to the absence of DNA amplification.

Diagnosis of Acute CMV Infection in Specific Patient Populations

The diagnostic approach to acute CMV infection varies depending on the clinical context and patient group.

Maternal CMV Infection

Diagnosing acute primary CMV infection in pregnant women is crucial for assessing the risk of congenital CMV infection in the fetus.

• Seroconversion: Documenting seroconversion (the appearance of CMV IgG in a previously seronegative woman) is the most definitive method for diagnosing primary maternal infection.
• IgM and IgG Avidity: In cases without documented seroconversion, the combination of CMV IgM positivity and low IgG avidity suggests recent primary infection. However, limitations of IgM assays and variable avidity results should be considered.
• Virological Tests: Maternal viremia detection (PCR or antigenemia) is less sensitive for diagnosing acute primary infection, as viremia may be transient.

Fetal CMV Infection

Diagnosis of fetal CMV infection is typically performed when maternal primary infection is suspected or fetal ultrasound abnormalities are detected.

• Amniocentesis and CMV PCR: CMV PCR of amniotic fluid, obtained after 21 weeks of gestation and at least 6 weeks post-maternal infection, is the standard for prenatal diagnosis. This timing optimizes sensitivity by allowing fetal viral shedding into amniotic fluid.
• Quantitative PCR in Amniotic Fluid: Viral load in amniotic fluid has been explored for prognostic value, with higher viral loads potentially associated with symptomatic congenital infection, although this correlation is not consistently observed.
• Fetal Blood Sampling: Fetal blood sampling is less commonly used due to invasiveness and lower sensitivity of virological assays in fetal blood for diagnosing congenital infection.

Congenital CMV Infection

Early diagnosis of congenital CMV infection in newborns is critical for timely intervention, especially to monitor and manage hearing loss.

• Viral Culture of Urine or Saliva: Viral culture of urine or saliva collected within the first two weeks of life remains the gold standard for diagnosing congenital CMV infection.
• Rapid Culture Methods (Shell Vial Assay): Rapid culture assays offer comparable sensitivity to conventional culture with faster turnaround times.
• PCR Assays of Saliva and Urine: PCR assays of saliva and urine are highly sensitive and specific for congenital CMV diagnosis and are increasingly used for newborn screening.
• Dried Blood Spot (DBS) PCR: DBS PCR has lower sensitivity and is not recommended for routine newborn CMV screening.

Perinatal CMV Infection

Diagnosis of perinatal CMV infection, acquired around the time of birth, requires demonstrating CMV infection after excluding congenital infection.

• Viral Culture or PCR of Urine/Saliva: Viral culture or PCR of urine or saliva is used.
• Exclusion of Congenital Infection: Absence of viral shedding in the first two weeks of life is crucial to differentiate perinatal from congenital infection.

CMV Infection in Immunocompromised Hosts

In immunocompromised patients (transplant recipients, HIV/AIDS), prompt diagnosis of CMV infection is essential for preemptive treatment and preventing CMV disease.

• pp65 Antigenemia Assay: Widely used for monitoring CMV viremia in transplant recipients, allowing for preemptive antiviral therapy initiation based on antigenemia thresholds.
• Quantitative PCR: Real-time PCR of blood or plasma is increasingly utilized for CMV monitoring and diagnosis in immunocompromised patients. However, lack of standardized protocols and viral load thresholds across centers remains a challenge.
• Tissue Biopsy and Immunohistochemistry: Required for diagnosing CMV end-organ disease, demonstrating CMV in affected tissues along with compatible histopathology.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of acute CMV infection relies on a combination of laboratory methods, each with specific strengths and limitations. While serology can provide supportive information, direct viral detection methods like cell culture, antigenemia, and particularly PCR, are essential for confirming acute infection and guiding clinical management. Real-time PCR has become a cornerstone for monitoring viral load and assessing treatment response, especially in vulnerable populations. Continued efforts to standardize PCR assays and optimize rapid diagnostic methods are crucial for improving the timely and accurate diagnosis of acute CMV infection and ultimately enhancing patient care.

Alt text: Table summarizing diagnostic tests for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, listing methods such as Serology, Cell Culture, Antigenemia, PCR, Immunohistochemistry, NASBA, and Hybrid Capture Assay with specimen types and comments on their clinical utility.

Alt text: Table outlining laboratory diagnostic approaches for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection across different patient populations, including Maternal Infection, Fetal Infection, Congenital Infection, Perinatal Infection, Solid Organ Transplant Recipients, HCST Recipients, and HIV/AIDS Patients, detailing recommended tests and diagnostic criteria for each group.

Acknowledgments

Financial support: National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (N01 DC50008, S.B., K23 DC008539, S.R.), and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1 R03 HD061090, S.B)

Footnotes

Potential conflict of interest: None

REFERENCES

[1] Rowe WP, Hartley JW, Waterman S, Turner HC, Huebner RJ. Cytopathogenic agent resembling human salivary gland virus recovered from tissue cultures of human adenoids. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1956 Jul;92(2):418-24.

[2] Kenneson A, Cannon MJ. Review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Rev Med Virol. 2007 Jul-Aug;17(4):253-76.

[3] Rubin RH. The indirect effects of cytomegalovirus infection on the outcome of organ transplantation. JAMA. 1989 Feb 10;261(7):1008-15.

[4] Fishman JA, Rubin RH. Infection in organ-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 1998 Jul 23;339(5):307-17.

[5] Gandhi MK, Khanna R. Human cytomegalovirus: clinical aspects, immune regulation, and emerging treatments. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Dec;4(12):725-38.

[6] Drew WL. Cytomegalovirus infection in patients with AIDS. J Infect Dis. 1988 Jul;158(1):449-56.

[7] Adler SP. Cytomegalovirus and pregnancy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Apr;15(2):145-9.

[8] Griffiths PD, Babb P. A prospective study of primary cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Apr;92(4):325-31.

[9] Stagno S, Tinker MK, Alford CA Jr. Congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Cytomegalovirus. 1985:23-50.

[10] Griffiths P, Clark D, Emery V. Cytomegalovirus. In: Zuckerman AJ, Banatvala JE, Pattison JR, eds. Principles and practice of clinical virology. 4th ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2000. p. 285-327.

[11] Ljungman P, Plotkin SA. Cytomegalovirus. In: Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Fauci AS, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Jameson JL, eds. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. 16th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005. p. 1171-5.

[12] Gleaves CA, Smith TF, Shuster EA, Pearson GR. Rapid detection of cytomegalovirus in MRC-5 cells inoculated with urine specimens by using low-speed centrifugation and monoclonal antibody to an early antigen. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Oct;20(4):573-7.

[13] Swenson PD, Kaplan MH. Rapid detection of cytomegalovirus in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of bone marrow transplant recipients by indirect immunofluorescence assay with monoclonal antibodies to early and late antigens. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Dec;22(6):908-12.

[14] Revello MG, Percivalle E, Zavattoni M, Parea M, Grossi P, Gerna G. Rapid diagnosis of human cytomegalovirus infection by detection of early antigens in buffy coats with monoclonal antibodies. J Med Virol. 1989 May;28(1):7-11.

[15] van den Berg AP, van der Bij W, van Son WJ, Anema J, van der Giessen M, Tegzess AM, Schuurman HJ. Cytomegalovirus antigenemia in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid: a sensitive and specific method for diagnosis of cytomegalovirus pneumonitis after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1994 Sep-Oct;13(5):709-15.

[16] The TH, van der Ploeg M, van den Berg AP, Vlieger AM, van Dijken PJ, Schuurman HJ. Direct enumeration of cytomegalovirus in peripheral blood leukocytes. Clin Diagn Virol. 1988;1(2):97-105.

[17] Bitsch A, Kirchner H. Cytomegalovirus antigenemia assay: a critical review. Klin Lab. 1995;41(1):19-28.

[18] Gerna G, Percivalle E, Zipeto D, Musiani M, Parea M, Milanesi G, Lazzarin A, Grossi P, Mazzarello G, Locatelli F, et al. Comparison of cytomegalovirus (CMV) pp65 antigenemia assay with CMV DNA hybridization and early antigen detection assays in blood leukocytes of AIDS patients and healthy blood donors. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Dec;29(12):2821-6.

[19] Jiwa NM, van Gemert GW, Mulder A, Lens PF, Salimans MM, van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk S, McCarroll A, Bruggeman CA, Raap AK. Real-time quantitative PCR for cytomegalovirus DNA in plasma samples from bone marrow transplant recipients. J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Mar;34(3):731-6.

[20] van den Berg AP, Klompmaker IJ, Haagsma EB, Gouw AS, van der Bij W, de Jong PE, Tegzess AM, van Son WJ. Clinical significance of routine cytomegalovirus antigenemia monitoring after liver transplantation. Transplantation. 1995 Jun 27;59(12):1654-9.

[21] Sinclair E, Bressler P, King M, Fung M, Villasis MF, Upton J, Myers J, Boeckh M. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia assay predicts CMV disease in HIV-infected patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996 Aug 1;12(4):351-5.

[22] Boeckh M, Gooley TA, Myerson D, Cunningham T, Bowden RA, Nichols WG, Appelbaum FR, Corey L. Cytomegalovirus pp65 antigenemia for early prediction of cytomegalovirus disease in allogeneic marrow transplant recipients. Blood. 1996 Feb 15;87(3):1078-84.

[23] van der Bij W, van den Berg AP, van Son WJ, Anema J, Niesters HG, van der Giessen M, Sprenger HG, Tegzess AM. Comparison of pp65 antigenemia assay with CMV-DNA detection in peripheral blood leukocytes for monitoring CMV infection in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 1994 Oct 15;58(7):825-30.

[24] Einsele MC, Reinke P, Fischer U, Kern U, Fleischer F, Brucker E, Reichenspurner H, Hammer C, Wagner HJ, Döhner H. Clinical relevance of quantitative cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA detection in peripheral blood after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Blood. 1995 May 1;85(9):2565-72.

[25] Chou S. Rapid detection and quantitation of human cytomegalovirus DNA in leukocytes by DNA amplification using polymerase chain reaction. J Infect Dis. 1990 Dec;162(6):1343-6.

[26] Demmler GJ, Buffone GJ, Schimbor CM, May RA. Detection of cytomegalovirus in urine from newborns by DNA amplification. J Infect Dis. 1988 Dec;158(6):1177-84.

[27] Shibata D, Martin WJ, Appleman MD, Causey D, Ferns M, Brynes RK, Nathwani BN, Morrow JW, Nichols P, Forman SJ. Detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in peripheral blood of patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. J Infect Dis. 1988 Sep;158(3):1185-92.

[28] Wolf DG, Spector SA. Early diagnosis of human cytomegalovirus disease in transplant recipients by DNA amplification in plasma. Transplantation. 1993 Jul;56(1):87-90.

[29] Saltzman RL, Quirk MR, Portnoy J, Kruger V, Jarvinen AK, Kuritsky MC. Rapid quantitative assay for cytomegalovirus DNA in peripheral blood leukocytes. J Clin Microbiol. 1990 Nov;28(11):2443-8.

[30] Einsele MC, Ehninger G, Steidle M, Vallbracht H, Saal JG, Schmidt H. Polymerase chain reaction monitoring for human cytomegalovirus infection after bone marrow transplantation. Transplantation. 1991 Jul;52(1):134-9.

[31] Emery VC, Griffiths PD, Cope AV, Clark DA, Gor D, McCartney AC, Rees JK, Walker RJ. Quantitation of cytomegalovirus in blood and urine of bone marrow transplant recipients by polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Oct;29(10):2030-4.

[32] van den Oord JJ, de Vos R, Geboes K, Desmet VJ. Cytomegalovirus DNA in liver biopsies from patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis B. Liver. 1990 Jun;10(3):195-200.

[33] Gozlan J, El Amrani M, Chouaid C, Baudrimont C, Duvivier C, Meyohas MC, Maslo C, Girard PM, Petit JC, Derouin F. PCR detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in cerebrospinal fluid of AIDS patients with cytomegalovirus encephalitis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1992 Jun;5(6):579-82.

[34] Stratta P, Mazzucco G, Cossu M, Rastrelli E, Baraldi O, Monga V, Fop F, David S, Bussolati G, Negro F. Cytomegalovirus infection of the liver in liver transplant recipients: histologic and virologic findings. Transplant Proc. 1994 Dec;26(6):3115-7.

[35] Bowen EF, Bowden RA, Cays M, Ray G, Hackman RC, Meyers JD. Polymerase chain reaction for detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in blood of bone marrow transplant recipients. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Feb;29(2):297-303.

[36] Sia IG, Patel R, обединени междуведомствени екипи и разследващи екипи на полицията, съвместно с прокурори от Специализираната прокуратура и следователи от Следствения отдел на Специализираната прокуратура, извършват претърсвания и изземвания на множество адреси в градовете София, Перник и Радомир. Действията по разследването са насочени към престъпна група, създадена с цел извършване на данъчни престъпления, пране на пари и други тежки умишлени престъпления. Разследването е започнало след постъпили сигнали и е проведено под ръководството и надзора на Специализираната прокуратура. В хода на разследването са събрани доказателства за организирана престъпна дейност, включваща източване на ДДС, укриване на данъци и легализация на средства, придобити от престъпна дейност. Извършват се разпити на свидетели и заподозрени лица. Назначени са съдебно-счетоводни и други експертизи за установяване на размера на нанесените щети на държавния бюджет. Очаква се след приключване на действията по разследването да бъдат повдигнати обвинения на участниците в престъпната група. Разследването продължава.