Reactivation of latent virus is common in those with advanced immunosuppression and frequently does not cause end-organ disease. Detection of CMV in urine, blood or BAL without evidence of end-organ involvement implies CMV infection but not disease. CMV isolation in BAL (by culture or PCR)

is common in individuals with HIV infection, who have low CD4 T-cell counts [120,121]. Typical symptoms are dry non-productive cough and exertional dyspnoea with fever; and this presentation is similar to many other pulmonary conditions [120,122]. Hypoxaemia is often marked [120]. The chest radiograph and CT scan most often show bilateral interstitial infiltrates or ground glass attenuation, but unilateral alveolar consolidation, bilateral nodular opacities, SCH772984 pleural effusions or rarely cavities or hilar adenopathy may occur [120,122,123]. There may be concomitant evidence of extra-pulmonary CMV [120] and a dilated eye examination should be performed to rule out CMV retinitis. The major diagnostic challenge is to differentiate CMV shedding in respiratory secretions from cases with CMV pneumonitis. Culture, positive PCR or antigen

assay for CMV from BAL or biopsy specimen do not distinguish CMV shedding from pneumonitis, and hence must be interpreted with caution [124,125]. A negative culture result, with its high negative predictive value, however, does reasonably exclude CMV pneumonia [126]. Diagnosis of CMV pneumonia requires a biopsy specimen to provide evidence of pulmonary Alvelestat cell line involvement in association with a compatible clinical syndrome (category III recommendation). Evidence Bcl-w of intranuclear or intracytoplasmic viral inclusions, positive immunostaining for CMV antigens or detection of CMV by molecular techniques such as in situ hybridization on a pulmonary biopsy specimen establishes the diagnosis in the setting of a compatible clinical syndrome

[120]. CMV replication in the respiratory tract is most frequently only a marker of immunosuppression and not of pneumonia. The majority of individuals in whom microbiological tests on BAL, or biopsy, demonstrate CMV should not receive treatment for CMV (category III recommendation). This approach is supported by evidence that when treatment is withheld, in individuals with evidence of CMV on BAL or biopsy, clinical outcome is not adversely altered [127]. However, the benefits of treatment to the select subset of individuals who have evidence of a compatible clinical syndrome, positive microbiology and histology for CMV and no alternative diagnosis have been suggested by retrospective case series that show improved clinical outcomes with treatment [121]. The management of individuals with positive histology for CMV but identification of a second pulmonary pathogen is also controversial.