Search

Background: CD4 T-cell counts are widely used to assess treatment eligibility and to follow-up HIV-infected patients. The World Health Organization prequalification of in vitro diagnostics program conducted a performance evaluation of the FACSPresto (BD Biosciences), a new point-of-care instrument to measure absolute CD4-T cell (CD4) counts and percentages in venous and capillary blood samples from HIV-infected patients. Methods: Patients were recruited in Belgium (200 patients) and in Tanzania (247 patients). Venous blood samples were analyzed in two nearby reference laboratories. In addition, nurses/technicians collected a capillary blood sample by finger prick directly into a FACSPresto CD4 cartridge. Assay precision was assessed on fresh blood and on external quality control samples. Trueness (bias) was assessed by comparing results from FACSPresto with the reference (single-platform FACSCalibur). Clinical misclassification was measured at 200, 350 and 500 cells/μL thresholds. Results: Intra-assay precision was < 6%, and inter-assay < 8%. CD4 results from FACSPresto and reference method resulted in regression slopes of 0.99–1.11 using either venous or capillary blood. Correlation was better for venous than for capillary blood (minimum 0.97 vs 0.93 respectively). Capillary blood resulted in a larger bias than venous blood, with 24 and 83 cells/μL for absolute CD4 counts on capillary blood in Antwerp and Dar es Salaam respectively, vs 12 and 41 cells/μL on venous blood. Bias on CD4% was < 1% on both venous and capillary blood, and was proportionally better than for absolute CD4 counts. Clinical misclassification was in line with the average overestimation, showing a very good specificity, but sensitivity around 70–90%. The rejection rate was 11% on first reading, leading to 6% of all samples without final result after a second reading. Conclusions: The FACSPresto performed very well on venous blood samples, and well on capillary blood samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: HIV-infected patients require antiretroviral treatment for life. To improve access to care, CD4 enumeration and viral load tests have been redesigned to be used as point-of-care techniques using finger-stick blood. Accurate CD4 counting in capillary blood requires a free flowing blood drop that is achieved by blade incision. The aim of this study was to assess the attitude of the patients toward blade-based finger-stick blood donation. Methods: Four hundred and ninety-nine patients were included (299 patients from South Africa and 200 from Belgium). They completed a questionnaire to express their preference for finger stick or venipuncture, after undergoing both. The South African patient cohort was divided in two groups, receiving either single or multiple finger stick for CD4 and other HIV-related tests. The Belgian patients received a single finger stick for CD4 testing, and were asked to respond directly and again after two days. Results: The majority of the patients preferred the finger stick to the venipuncture. The perceived pain using the blade was superior to a small needle, but similar to a large needle. They preferred up to three finger sticks over one venipuncture. Up to 30% of the patients changed their mind over two days. The main reason for choosing a finger stick was continued bleeding after venipuncture. The most cited objection to finger stick was pain/soreness. Conclusion: Patient perceptions support the implementation of donating capillary blood with blade-based finger stick during CD4 point-of-care testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A new CD4 point-of-care instrument, the CyFlow miniPOC, which provides absolute and percentage CD4 T-cells, used for screening and monitoring of HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings, was introduced recently. We assessed the performance of this novel instrument in a reference laboratory and in a field setting in Senegal. Methodology: A total of 321 blood samples were obtained from 297 adults and 24 children, all HIV-patients attending university hospitals in Dakar, or health centers in Ziguinchor. Samples were analyzed in parallel on CyFlow miniPOC, FACSCount CD4 and FACSCalibur to assess CyFlow miniPOC precision and accuracy. Results: At the reference lab, CyFlow miniPOC, compared to FACSCalibur, showed an absolute mean bias of -12.6 cells/mm3 and a corresponding relative mean bias of -2.3% for absolute CD4 counts. For CD4 percentages, the absolute mean bias was -0.1%. Compared to FACSCount CD4, the absolute and relative mean biases were -31.2 cells/mm3 and -4.7%, respectively, for CD4 counts, whereas the absolute mean bias for CD4 percentages was 1.3%. The CyFlow miniPOC was able to classify HIV-patients eligible for ART with a sensitivity of ≥ 95% at the different ART-initiation thresholds (200, 350 and 500 CD4 cells/mm3). In the field lab, the room temperature ranged from 30 to 35°C during the working hours. At those temperatures, the CyFlow miniPOC, compared to FACSCount CD4, had an absolute and relative mean bias of 7.6 cells/mm3 and 2.8%, respectively, for absolute CD4 counts, and an absolute mean bias of 0.4% for CD4 percentages. The CyFlow miniPOC showed sensitivity equal or greater than 94%. Conclusion: The CyFlow miniPOC showed high agreement with FACSCalibur and FACSCount CD4. The CyFlow miniPOC provides both reliable absolute CD4 counts and CD4 percentages even under the field conditions, and is suitable for monitoring HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing can improve access to treatment by enabling decentralization and reducing patient loss-to-follow-up. As new POC CD4 technologies become available, their performance should be assessed before widespread deployment. This study reports the findings of five independent evaluations of the PointCare NOW CD4 system. Materials/Methods: Evaluations were conducted in Southern Africa (Mozambique, South Africa) and North America (Canada, USA). 492 blood samples (55 from HIV-negative blood donors and 437 from HIV-infected patients, including 20 children aged between 12 and 59 months) were tested with both the PointCare NOW and reference flow cytometry instruments. Assessment of bias, precision and levels of clinical misclassification for absolute and percent CD4 count was conducted. Results: PointCare NOW significantly overestimated CD4 absolute counts with a mean relative bias of +35.0%. Bias was greater in samples with CD4 counts below ≤350cells/µl (+51.3%) than in the CD4 >350cells/µl stratum (15.1%). Bias in CD4% had a similar trend with an overall relative mean bias of +25.6% and a larger bias for low CD4 stratum (+40.2%) than the higher CD4 stratum (+5.8%). Relative bias for CD4% in children was -6.8%. In terms of repeatability, PointCare NOW had a coefficient of variation of 11%. Using a threshold of 350cells/µl, only 47% of patients who qualified for antiretroviral therapy with reference CD4 testing, would have been eligible for treatment with PointCare NOW test results. This was 39% using a 200cells/µl threshold. Agreement with infant samples was higher, with 90% qualifying at a 25% eligibility threshold. Conclusion: The performance of the PointCare NOW instrument for absolute and percent CD4 enumeration was inadequate for HIV clinical management in adults. In children, the small sample size was not large enough to draw a conclusion. This study also highlights the importance of independent evaluation of new diagnostic technology platforms before deployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Laboratory follow-up of HIV patients in resource-limited settings requires appropriate instruments for CD4 T cell enumeration. In this study, we evaluated the application of a simplified, mobile and robust flow cytometry system, the Apogee Auto 40 analyzer (Auto40) using thermoresistant reagents, for CD4 T cell enumeration. We measured the absolute CD4 counts in fresh whole blood samples from 170 Senegalese subjects, including 129 HIV-positive (HIV+) patients and 41 HIV-negative (HIV−) controls. Based on volumetric primary CD4 gating, cells were stained with commercially available reagents (Easy MoAb CD4;Bio-D, Valenzano, Italy) and analyzed on the Auto40. The results were compared with those from the FACSCount system (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, USA). Repeatability analysis was performed on duplicate testing of 49 samples on both FACSCount and Auto40. The intra-run precision was measured by 10 replicates using 3 clinical blood samples with low, intermediate and high CD4 concentrations. The results from the two instruments were in good agreement. The percent similarity between the results of both instruments was 99%±relative standard deviation of 12.7%. The concordance correlation coefficient was 0.99. The absolute bias and limits of agreement (LOA) between the two instruments, calculated by Bland–Altman analysis, were clinically acceptable (bias: +4 cells/μl; LOA: −111 to +120 cells/μl). The clinical agreement between the two instruments at a cutoff of 200 CD4 cells/μl was 94%. The repeatability of measurements on the Auto40 was also similar to that observed with FACSCount system (bias +0.1 cells/μl, coefficient of variation 2.5% vs bias −1.1cells/μl, coefficient of variation 2.9% respectively). In conclusion, our results indicate that the Auto 40 system, using thermoresistant reagents, is suitable for CD4 T cell enumeration and will be a helpful tool to improve HIV laboratory monitoring in resource-limited settings. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]