BACKGROUND: The global HIV/AIDS pandemic and guidelines for initiating anti-retroviral therapy (ART) and opportunistic infection prophylaxis demand affordable, reliable, and accurate CD4 testing. A simple innovative approach applicable to existing technology that has been successfully applied in resource-challenged settings, PanLeukogated CD4 (PLG), could offer solutions for cost saving and improved precision. METHODS: Day-old whole blood from 99 HIV+ donors was simultaneously studied in five North-American laboratories to compare the performance of their predicate methods with the dual-platform PLG method. The predicate technology included varying 4-color CD45/CD3/CD4/CD8 protocols on different flow cytometers. Each laboratory also assayed eight replicate specimens of day-old blood from 10 to 14 local donors. Bias and precision of predicate and PLG methods was studied between- and within-participating laboratories. RESULTS: Significantly (P < 0.0001) improved between-laboratory precision/coefficient of variation (CV%) was noted using the PLG method (overall median 9.3% vs. predicate median CV 13.1%). Within-laboratory precision was also significantly (P < 0.0001) better overall using PLG (median 4.6% vs. predicate median CV 6.2%) and in 3 of the 5 laboratories. PLG counts tended to be 11% smaller than predicate methods (P < 0.0001) for shipped (median of predicate-PLG = 31) and local specimens (median of predicate-PLG = 23), both overall and in 4 of 5 laboratories (median decreases of 4, 16, 20, and 21% in shipped specimens); the other laboratory had a median increase of 5%. CONCLUSION: Laboratories using predicate CD4 methods similar to those in this study could improve their between-laboratory and their within-laboratory precision, and reduce costs, by switching to the PLG method after adequate training, if a change (usually, a decrease) in CD4 counts is acceptable to their health systems. Copyright 2008 Clinical Cytometry Society.
BACKGROUND: The global HIV/AIDS pandemic and guidelines for initiating anti-retroviral therapy (ART) and opportunistic infection prophylaxis demand affordable, reliable, and accurate CD4 testing. A simple innovative approach applicable to existing technology that has been successfully applied in resource-challenged settings, PanLeukogated CD4 (PLG), could offer solutions for cost saving and improved precision. METHODS: Day-old whole blood from 99 HIV+ donors was simultaneously studied in five North-American laboratories to compare the performance of their predicate methods with the dual-platform PLG method. The predicate technology included varying 4-color CD45/CD3/CD4/CD8 protocols on different flow cytometers. Each laboratory also assayed eight replicate specimens of day-old blood from 10 to 14 local donors. Bias and precision of predicate and PLG methods was studied between- and within-participating laboratories. RESULTS: Significantly (P < 0.0001) improved between-laboratory precision/coefficient of variation (CV%) was noted using the PLG method (overall median 9.3% vs. predicate median CV 13.1%). Within-laboratory precision was also significantly (P < 0.0001) better overall using PLG (median 4.6% vs. predicate median CV 6.2%) and in 3 of the 5 laboratories. PLG counts tended to be 11% smaller than predicate methods (P < 0.0001) for shipped (median of predicate-PLG = 31) and local specimens (median of predicate-PLG = 23), both overall and in 4 of 5 laboratories (median decreases of 4, 16, 20, and 21% in shipped specimens); the other laboratory had a median increase of 5%. CONCLUSION: Laboratories using predicate CD4 methods similar to those in this study could improve their between-laboratory and their within-laboratory precision, and reduce costs, by switching to the PLG method after adequate training, if a change (usually, a decrease) in CD4 counts is acceptable to their health systems. Copyright 2008 Clinical Cytometry Society.
Authors: Cliburn Chan; Lin Lin; Jacob Frelinger; Valérie Hérbert; Dominic Gagnon; Claire Landry; Rafick-Pierre Sékaly; Jennifer Enzor; Janet Staats; Kent J Weinhold; Maria Jaimes; Mike West Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Lisa H Butterfield; A Karolina Palucka; Cedrik M Britten; Madhav V Dhodapkar; Leif Håkansson; Sylvia Janetzki; Yutaka Kawakami; Thomas-Oliver Kleen; Peter P Lee; Cristina Maccalli; Holden T Maecker; Vernon C Maino; Michele Maio; Anatoli Malyguine; Giuseppe Masucci; Graham Pawelec; Douglas M Potter; Licia Rivoltini; Lupe G Salazar; Dolores J Schendel; Craig L Slingluff; Wenru Song; David F Stroncek; Hideaki Tahara; Magdalena Thurin; Giorgio Trinchieri; Sjoerd H van Der Burg; Theresa L Whiteside; Jon M Wigginton; Francesco Marincola; Samir Khleif; Bernard A Fox; Mary L Disis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mark A Naivar; Mark E Wilder; Robert C Habbersett; Travis A Woods; David S Sebba; John P Nolan; Steven W Graves Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Michèle Bergeron; Géraldine Daneau; Tao Ding; Nadia E Sitoe; Larry E Westerman; Jocelijn Stokx; Ilesh V Jani; Lindi M Coetzee; Lesley Scott; Anja De Weggheleire; Luc Boel; Wendy S Stevens; Deborah K Glencross; Trevor F Peter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 3.240