Implementing CLIA for QuantiFERON®-CMV testing: Optimizing cellular immune response against cytomegalovirus

Juliana Esperalba1, Maria Arnedo-Muñoz2, Ariadna Rando-Segura3

  • 1Microbiology Department, Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain; Genetics and Microbiology Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Infecciosas (CIBERINFEC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.

Insights

Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) offers a reliable alternative to ELISA for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) interferon-gamma release assays in transplant recipients. This method demonstrates excellent agreement and may improve laboratory efficiency.

Area of Science:

  • Immunology
  • Transplant Medicine
  • Infectious Diseases

Background:

  • Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections are a major concern for solid organ transplant recipients.
  • Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release assays, like QuantiFERON®-CMV (QTF-CMV), are crucial for managing CMV cellular immunity.
  • Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) presents potential technical advantages over the standard ELISA method for QTF-CMV.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the performance of a CLIA-based assay (LIAISON® QuantiFERON®-TB Gold Plus) for quantifying IFN-γ in QTF-CMV testing.
  • To compare the CLIA method directly against the established ELISA-based QuantiFERON®-CMV assay.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective analysis of 169 plasma samples from 85 lung transplant recipients.
  • Quantification of IFN-γ using both ELISA (Qiagen®) and CLIA (DiaSorin®) platforms.
  • Statistical comparison included correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman analysis, ROC curves, Kappa index, sensitivity, and specificity.

Main Results:

  • CLIA produced significantly higher IFN-γ levels compared to ELISA for both specific (CMV-NIL) and nonspecific (MIT-NIL) responses.
  • High correlation (r and ρc >0.93) and diagnostic agreement (95.86%, Kappa=0.913) were observed between the two methods.
  • CLIA showed fewer indeterminate results (3.55% vs 4.73%) and achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity with an optimal cut-off of 0.2754 IU/mL.

Conclusions:

  • The CLIA method demonstrates excellent agreement with ELISA for QTF-CMV testing, establishing it as a reliable alternative.
  • CLIA offers potential for improved laboratory workflows due to its automatable nature.
  • Adjusting the cut-off value is recommended for optimal diagnostic accuracy when using CLIA for QTF-CMV.
Abstract