001). The viral loads of all of these discordant samples were low copy numbers. Indeed, complete concordance was observed in the quantitative results for the samples with ≥36 copies/ml in the prototype assay. Comparison of the prototype assay and each home-brew assay for all positive samples according to both assays had a high degree of correlation (Fig. 3). Longitudinal monitoring of five representative EPZ015666 datasheet individual transplant recipients is demonstrated in Figure 4. The dynamics of the CMV load in all patients were similar, although some discrepancies were observed within the follow-up period.

Standardized calibration materials and commercially available assays have been developed for standardized quantification for specific viruses, such as HIV and hepatitis C virus (12–14). Standardization is necessary for consensus guidelines in patient management. Hayden et al. (7) reported a multicenter comparison of different real-time PCR assays for EBV. This study was carried out at eight sites using three panels consisting Pexidartinib mw of serial dilutions of commercially available EBV DNA and extracts from 19 whole blood specimens. Strong concordance among laboratories was observed with respect to the qualitative results, whereas quantitative discordance was seen at a maximum of 4 log-units. This discrepancy decreased when a common reference standard was used to obtain quantitative results. Preiksaitis et al.

(15) reported an international comparison of EBV DNA quantitative assays. They distributed a panel of samples to 28 laboratories. The panel of samples consisted

of seven constructs using EBV-positive cell lines and three clinical plasma samples. Half of the quantitative results were within ±0.5 log-units, whereas the maximum variation was approximately 4 log-units. With regard to CMV quantification, Pang et al. (16) recently reported an international comparison of CMV viral load assays. They distributed a panel of samples to 33 laboratories. The panel of samples consisted of seven constructs using purified CMV stock and three Dichloromethane dehalogenase clinical plasma samples. Fifty-eight percent of the quantitative results were within ±0.5 log-units whereas the maximum variation was approximately 4 log-units. In the present study, five independent laboratories were involved in comparing the quantitative values for EBV and CMV from each home-brew assay and the prototype assay. The maximum variations were 4.15 for EBV and 3.03 for CMV, which is acceptable in comparison with previous reports (7, 15, 16). Additionally, the dynamics of the EBV load in 12 patients and the CMV load in five patients were found to be similar, and this comparison may be unique. Even the inter-laboratory variation appears to be small; however, it is uncertain whether this variation is a problem for treating patients. The development of a prototype assay may help eliminate concern related to variability.