Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Field evaluation of PIMA point-of-care CD4 testing in Rakai, Uganda.
Galiwango, Ronald M; Lubyayi, Lawrence; Musoke, Richard; Kalibbala, Sarah; Buwembo, Martin; Kasule, Jjingo; Serwadda, David; Gray, Ronald H; Reynolds, Steven J; Chang, Larry W.
  • Galiwango RM; Rakai Health Sciences Program, Kalisizo, Uganda.
  • Lubyayi L; Rakai Health Sciences Program, Kalisizo, Uganda.
  • Musoke R; Rakai Health Sciences Program, Kalisizo, Uganda.
  • Kalibbala S; Rakai Health Sciences Program, Kalisizo, Uganda.
  • Buwembo M; Rakai Health Sciences Program, Kalisizo, Uganda.
  • Kasule J; Rakai Health Sciences Program, Kalisizo, Uganda.
  • Serwadda D; School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
  • Gray RH; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
  • Reynolds SJ; Laboratory of Immunoregulation, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
  • Chang LW; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
PLoS One ; 9(3): e88928, 2014.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24614083
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the accuracy of PIMA Point-of-Care (POC) CD4 testing in rural Rakai, Uganda.

METHODS:

903 HIV positive persons attending field clinics provided a venous blood sample assessed on site using PIMA analyzers per manufacturer's specifications. The venous samples were then run on FACSCalibur flow cytometry at a central facility. The Bland-Altman method was used to estimate mean bias and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for a CD4 threshold of <350 and <500 cells/uL for antiretroviral eligibility.

RESULTS:

There was a high correlation between PIMA and FACSCalibur CD4 counts (r = 0.943, p<0.001). Relative to FACSCalibur, the PIMA POC CD4 had negative mean bias of -34.6 cells/uL (95% LOA -219.8 to 150.6) overall. The dispersion at CD4<350 cells/uL was 5.1 cells/uL (95% LOA -126.6 to 136.8). For a threshold of CD4<350 cells/uL, PIMA venous blood had a sensitivity of 88.6% (95%CI 84.8-92.4%), specificity of 87.5% (95%CI 84.9-90.1%), NPV of 94.9% (95%CI 93.1-96.7%), and PPV of 74.4% (95%CI 69.6-79.2%). PIMA sensitivity and PPV significantly increased to 96.1% and 88.3% respectively with increased threshold of 500 cells/uL.

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall, PIMA POC CD4 counts demonstrated negative bias compared to FACSCalibur. PIMA POC sensitivity improved significantly at a higher CD4 threshold of 500 than a 350 cells/uL threshold.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Recuento de Linfocito CD4 / Sistemas de Atención de Punto Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Humans País como asunto: Africa Idioma: En Año: 2014 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Recuento de Linfocito CD4 / Sistemas de Atención de Punto Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Humans País como asunto: Africa Idioma: En Año: 2014 Tipo del documento: Article