BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based monitoring of antiretroviral therapy is essential but adds a significant cost to HIV care. The World Health Organization 2006 guidelines support the use of CD4 lymphocyte count (CD4) to define treatment failure in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We compared CD4 obtained on replicate samples from 497 HIV-positive Ugandans (before and during ART) followed for 18 months by 2 manual bead-based assays, Dynabeads (Dynal Biotech), and Cytospheres (Beckman Coulter) with those generated by flow cytometry at the Infectious Diseases Institute in Kampala, Uganda. RESULTS: We tested 1671 samples (123 before ART) with Dynabeads and 1444 samples (91 before ART) with Cytospheres. Mean CD4 was 231 cells/mm (SD, 139) and 239 cells/mm (SD, 140) by Dynabeads and flow cytometry, respectively. Mean CD4 was 186 cells/mm (SD, 101) and 242 cells/mm (SD, 136) by Cytospheres and flow cytometry, respectively. The mean difference in CD4 count by flow cytometry versus Dynabeads were 8.8 cells/mm (SD, 76.0) and versus Cytospheres were 56.8 cells/mm (SD, 85.8). The limits of agreement were -140.9 to 158.4 cells/mm for Dynabeads and -112.2 to 225.8 cells/mm for Cytospheres. Linear regression analysis showed higher correlation between flow cytometry and Dynabeads (r=0.85, r=0.73, slope=0.85, intercept=28) compared with the correlation between flow cytometry and Cytospheres (r=0.78, r=0.60, slope=0.58, intercept=45). Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve to predict CD4<200 cells/mm was 0.928 for Dynabeads and 0.886 for Cytospheres. CONCLUSION: Although Dynabeads and Cytospheres both underestimated CD4 lymphocyte count compared with flow cytometry, in resource-limited settings with low daily throughput, manual bead-based assays may provide a less expensive alternative to flow cytometry.
BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based monitoring of antiretroviral therapy is essential but adds a significant cost to HIV care. The World Health Organization 2006 guidelines support the use of CD4 lymphocyte count (CD4) to define treatment failure in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We compared CD4 obtained on replicate samples from 497 HIV-positive Ugandans (before and during ART) followed for 18 months by 2 manual bead-based assays, Dynabeads (Dynal Biotech), and Cytospheres (Beckman Coulter) with those generated by flow cytometry at the Infectious Diseases Institute in Kampala, Uganda. RESULTS: We tested 1671 samples (123 before ART) with Dynabeads and 1444 samples (91 before ART) with Cytospheres. Mean CD4 was 231 cells/mm (SD, 139) and 239 cells/mm (SD, 140) by Dynabeads and flow cytometry, respectively. Mean CD4 was 186 cells/mm (SD, 101) and 242 cells/mm (SD, 136) by Cytospheres and flow cytometry, respectively. The mean difference in CD4 count by flow cytometry versus Dynabeads were 8.8 cells/mm (SD, 76.0) and versus Cytospheres were 56.8 cells/mm (SD, 85.8). The limits of agreement were -140.9 to 158.4 cells/mm for Dynabeads and -112.2 to 225.8 cells/mm for Cytospheres. Linear regression analysis showed higher correlation between flow cytometry and Dynabeads (r=0.85, r=0.73, slope=0.85, intercept=28) compared with the correlation between flow cytometry and Cytospheres (r=0.78, r=0.60, slope=0.58, intercept=45). Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve to predict CD4<200 cells/mm was 0.928 for Dynabeads and 0.886 for Cytospheres. CONCLUSION: Although Dynabeads and Cytospheres both underestimated CD4 lymphocyte count compared with flow cytometry, in resource-limited settings with low daily throughput, manual bead-based assays may provide a less expensive alternative to flow cytometry.
Authors: J M Didier; M D Kazatchkine; C Demouchy; C Moat; S Diagbouga; C Sepulveda; A M Di Lonardo; L Weiss Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: O C Ferreira; G Suleiman; C Brites; P Novoa; M Piovesana; J Suleiman; R H Kanayama; T R Russel; R Zwerner; W Harrington Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1988) Date: 1994-12
Authors: Serge Diagbouga; Corine Chazallon; Michel D Kazatchkine; Philippe Van de Perre; André Inwoley; Souleymane M'Boup; Mireille Prince David; Aoua Thiéro Ténin; Robert Soudré; Jean-Pierre Aboulker; Laurence Weiss Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-10-17 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: J V Giorgi; H L Cheng; J B Margolick; K D Bauer; J Ferbas; M Waxdal; I Schmid; L E Hultin; A L Jackson; L Park Journal: Clin Immunol Immunopathol Date: 1990-05
Authors: David S Boyle; Kenneth R Hawkins; Matthew S Steele; Mitra Singhal; Xuanhong Cheng Journal: Trends Biotechnol Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 19.536
Authors: Cathy Logan; Monique Givens; Jeffrey T Ives; Marie Delaney; Michael J Lochhead; Robert T Schooley; Constance A Benson Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Rosanna W Peeling; Kimberly A Sollis; Sarah Glover; Suzanne M Crowe; Alan L Landay; Ben Cheng; David Barnett; Thomas N Denny; Thomas J Spira; Wendy S Stevens; Siobhan Crowley; Shaffiq Essajee; Marco Vitoria; Nathan Ford Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.240