WHO multicenter evaluation of FACSCount CD4 and Pima CD4 T-cell count systems: instrument performance and misclassification of HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: CD4⁺ T-cell counts are used to screen and follow-up HIV-infected patients during treatment. As part of the World Health Organization prequalification program of diagnostics, we conducted an independent multicenter evaluation of the FACSCount CD4 and the Pima CD4, using the FACSCalibur as reference method. METHODS: A total of 440 paired capillary and venous blood samples were collected from HIV-infected patients attending the HIV outpatient clinic in Antwerp, Belgium, and the HIV care and treatment center in Dar es Salam, Tanzania. Capillary blood was run on Pima analyzer, whereas venous blood was analyzed on FACSCount, Pima, and FACSCalibur instruments. Precision and agreement between methods were assessed. RESULTS: The FACSCount CD4 results were in agreement with the FACSCalibur results with relative bias of 0.4% and 3.1% on absolute CD4 counts and an absolute bias of -0.6% and -1.1% on CD4% in Antwerp and Dar es Salam, respectively. The Pima CD4 results were in agreement with the FACSCalibur results with relative bias of -4.1% and -9.4% using venous blood and of -9.5% and -0.9% using capillary blood in Antwerp and Dar es Salam, respectively. At the threshold of 350 cells per microliter, the FACSCount CD4 and Pima CD4 using venous and capillary blood misclassified 7%, 9%, and 13% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The FACSCount CD4 provides reliable CD4 counts and CD4% and is suitable for monitoring adult and pediatric HIV patients in moderate-volume settings. The Pima CD4 is more suitable for screening eligible adult HIV patients for antiretroviral treatment initiation in low-volume laboratories.

WHO comparative evaluation of serologic assays for Chagas disease.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of commercially available test kits for Chagas disease for use in blood bank screening is difficult due to a lack of large and well-characterized specimen panels. This study presents a collaborative effort of Latin American blood centers and the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish such a panel. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 437 specimens, from 10 countries were collected and sent to the WHO Collaborating Center in São Paulo and used to evaluate 19 screening assays during 2001 through 2005. Specimens were assigned a positive or negative status based on concordant results in at least three of the four confirmatory assays (indirect immunofluorescence, Western blot, radioimmunoprecipitation assay, and recombinant immunoblot). RESULTS: Of the 437 specimens, 168 (39%) were characterized as positive, 262 (61%) were characterized as negative, and 7 (2%) were judged inconclusive and excluded from the analysis. Sensitivity and specificity varied considerably: 88 to 100 and 60 to 100 percent, respectively. Overall, enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) performed better than the other screening assays. Four EIAs had both parameters higher than 99 percent. Of the four confirmatory assays, only the RIPA gave a 100 percent agreement with the final serologic status of the specimens. CONCLUSION: The sensitivities and specificities of at least four of the commercially available EIAs for Chagas disease are probably high enough to justify their use for single-assay screening of blood donations. Our data suggest that the majority of commercially available indirect hemagglutination assays should not be used for blood donor screening and that the RIPA could be considered a gold standard for evaluating the performance of other assays.

The use of blood donor data for HIV surveillance purposes.

We reviewed the use of HIV prevalence data from blood donors for surveillance purposes and for the estimation of HIV prevalence. Fifty countries with generalized epidemics were considered. Data on HIV prevalence in blood donors were compared with published estimates of adult HIV prevalence. In most of the 19 countries with similar estimates, blood donations came primarily from replacement donors. Our analysis suggests that blood donors are usually not a good proxy for the general population.