Dried blood spot real-time polymerase chain reaction assays to screen newborns for congenital cytomegalovirus infection.
BACKGROUND
Reliable methods to screen newborns for congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection are needed for identification of infants at increased risk of hearing loss. Since dried blood spots (DBS) are routinely collected for metabolic screening from all newborns in the United States, there has been interest in using DBS polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods for newborn CMV screening.


OBJECTIVE
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of DBS real-time PCR assays for newborn CMV screening.


METHODS
Between March 2007 and May 2008, infants born at 7 US medical centers had saliva specimens tested by rapid culture for early antigen fluorescent foci. Results of saliva rapid culture were compared with a single-primer (March 2007-December 2007) and a 2-primer DBS real-time PCR (January 2008-May 2008). Infants whose specimens screened positive on rapid culture or PCR had congenital infection confirmed by the reference standard method with rapid culture testing on saliva or urine.


METHODS
Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) of single-primer and 2-primer DBS real-time PCR assays for identifying infants with confirmed congenital CMV infection.


RESULTS
Congenital CMV infection was confirmed in 92 of 20,448 (0.45%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36%-0.55%) infants. Ninety-one of 92 infants had positive results on saliva rapid culture. Of the 11,422 infants screened using the single-primer DBS PCR, 17 of 60 (28%) infants had positive results with this assay, whereas, among the 9026 infants screened using the 2-primer DBS PCR, 11 of 32 (34%) screened positive. The single-primer DBS PCR identified congenital CMV infection with a sensitivity of 28.3% (95% CI, 17.4%-41.4%), specificity of 99.9% (95% CI, 99.9%-100%), positive LR of 803.7 (95% CI, 278.7-2317.9), and negative LR of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6-0.8). The positive and negative predictive values of the single-primer DBS PCR were 80.9% (95% CI, 58.1%-94.5%) and 99.6% (95% CI, 99.5%-99.7%), respectively. The 2-primer DBS PCR assay identified infants with congenital CMV infection with a sensitivity of 34.4% (95% CI, 18.6%-53.2%), specificity of 99.9% (95% CI, 99.9%-100.0%), positive LR of 3088.9 (95% CI, 410.8-23 226.7), and negative LR of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5-0.8). The positive and negative predictive values of the 2-primer DBS PCR were 91.7% (95% CI, 61.5%-99.8%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.6%-99.9%), respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
Among newborns, CMV testing with DBS real-time PCR compared with saliva rapid culture had low sensitivity, limiting its value as a screening test.
Boppana
Suresh B
SB
UAB Department of Pediatrics, CHB 114, 1600 Sixth Ave S, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA. sboppana@peds.uab.edu
Ross
Shannon A
SA
Novak
Zdenek
Z
Shimamura
Masako
M
Tolan
Robert W
RW
Palmer
April L
AL
Ahmed
Amina
A
Michaels
Marian G
MG
Sánchez
Pablo J
PJ
Bernstein
David I
DI
Britt
William J
WJ
Fowler
Karen B
KB
D003587:Cytomegalovirus / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D003586:Cytomegalovirus Infections / Q000151:congenital* / Q000175:diagnosis*; D004279:DNA, Viral / Q000032:analysis; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D015997:Neonatal Screening; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012463:Saliva / Q000821:virology; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
D004279:DNA, Viral
J Virol. 1999 Aug;73(8):7027-30
10400803
J Virol Methods. 1994 Feb;46(2):279-85
8188821
J Infect Dis. 1993 Sep;168(3):552-6
8394857
J Infect Dis. 2005 Jan 15;191(2):227-33
15609232
J Mol Diagn. 2006 May;8(2):240-5
16645211
J Med Virol. 2006 Jul;78(7):923-5
16721859
J Infect Dis. 1993 Jun;167(6):1433-6
8388905
J Pediatr. 2005 Jun;146(6):817-23
15973325
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 15;49(4):522-8
19583520
Lancet. 2000 Jun 10;355(9220):2032-6
10885354
BMC Microbiol. 2008 Jan 08;8:2
18182096
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Feb;25(2):156-9
16462294
Pediatrics. 2007 Oct;120(4):898-921
17908777
Clin Diagn Virol. 1996 Jun;6(1):27-32
15566887
Scand J Infect Dis. 2008;40(11-12):935-42
18720260
J Infect Dis. 2007 Mar 15;195(6):782-8
17299707
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 Jul;28(7):588-92
19478688
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Mar;46(3):943-6
18199787
J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Feb;21(2):217-21
2982911
J Infect Dis. 2008 Mar 15;197(6):836-45
18279073
J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Mar;30(3):721-3
1313050
Scand J Infect Dis. 1997;29(5):465-8
9435033
J Virol Methods. 1987 Jul;16(4):327-38
2822747
J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(8):763-70
1941027
Rev Infect Dis. 1991 Mar-Apr;13(2):315-29
1645882
J Pediatr. 1997 Apr;130(4):624-30
9108862
N Engl J Med. 2006 May 18;354(20):2151-64
16707752
Eur J Epidemiol. 1998 Dec;14(8):791-6
9928874
J Am Acad Audiol. 2000 May;11(5):283-90
10821506
Pediatrics. 1992 Dec;90(6):862-6
1331946
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1992 Feb;11(2):93-9
1311066
Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):970-5
18450901
J Virol Methods. 2001 Sep;97(1-2):159-64
11483226
J Clin Virol. 2006 Jul;36(3):228-30
16750653
J Pediatr. 2006 Mar;148(3):332-6
16615962
Rev Med Virol. 2007 Jul-Aug;17(4):253-76
17579921
J Clin Virol. 2000 Sep 1;17(3):159-65
10996112