OBJECTIVE: In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratio could predict HIV infection status in HIV-exposed infants. METHODS: CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios were determined from data for live-born singleton infants who had been prospectively enrolled in the Women and Infants Transmission Study. Data for 2208 infants with known HIV infection status (179 HIV-infected and 2029 uninfected infants) were analyzed. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that the CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratio performed better than the proportion of CD4(+) T cells for diagnosis of HIV infection as early as 2 months of age, and this relationship was unaffected by adjustment for maternal race/ethnicity, infant birth weight, gestational age, and gender. At 4 months of age, 90% specificity for HIV diagnosis was associated with 60% sensitivity. For ease of use, graphical estimates based on cubic splines for the time-dependent parameters in a Box-Cox transformation (L), the median (M), and the coefficient of variation (S) were used to create LMS centile curves to show the sensitivity and specificity of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios in HIV-infected and uninfected infants until 12 months of age. At 6 months of age, a simplified equation that incorporated sequential CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios and hematocrit values resulted in improved receiver operating characteristic curves, with 94% positive predictive value and 98% negative predictive value. The positive and negative predictive values remained above 90% in simulated infant populations over a wide range of HIV infection prevalence values. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of virological diagnosis, a presumptive diagnosis of HIV infection status can be made on the basis of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios in HIV-1-exposed infants after 2 months of age; sensitivity and specificity can be improved at 6 months by using a discriminant analysis equation.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratio could predict HIV infection status in HIV-exposed infants. METHODS:CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios were determined from data for live-born singleton infants who had been prospectively enrolled in the Women and Infants Transmission Study. Data for 2208 infants with known HIV infection status (179 HIV-infected and 2029 uninfected infants) were analyzed. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that the CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratio performed better than the proportion of CD4(+) T cells for diagnosis of HIV infection as early as 2 months of age, and this relationship was unaffected by adjustment for maternal race/ethnicity, infant birth weight, gestational age, and gender. At 4 months of age, 90% specificity for HIV diagnosis was associated with 60% sensitivity. For ease of use, graphical estimates based on cubic splines for the time-dependent parameters in a Box-Cox transformation (L), the median (M), and the coefficient of variation (S) were used to create LMS centile curves to show the sensitivity and specificity of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios in HIV-infected and uninfected infants until 12 months of age. At 6 months of age, a simplified equation that incorporated sequential CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios and hematocrit values resulted in improved receiver operating characteristic curves, with 94% positive predictive value and 98% negative predictive value. The positive and negative predictive values remained above 90% in simulated infant populations over a wide range of HIV infection prevalence values. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of virological diagnosis, a presumptive diagnosis of HIV infection status can be made on the basis of CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratios in HIV-1-exposed infants after 2 months of age; sensitivity and specificity can be improved at 6 months by using a discriminant analysis equation.
Authors: Gayle G Sherman; Peter A Cooper; Ashraf H Coovadia; Adrian J Puren; Stephanie A Jones; Mantoa Mokhachane; Keith D Bolton Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: W T Shearer; K A Easley; J Goldfarb; H M Rosenblatt; H B Jenson; A Kovacs; K McIntosh Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: W T Shearer; K A Easley; J Goldfarb; H B Jenson; H M Rosenblatt; A Kovacs; K McIntosh Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Hoosen M Coovadia; Nigel C Rollins; Ruth M Bland; Kirsty Little; Anna Coutsoudis; Michael L Bennish; Marie-Louise Newell Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-03-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Heather A Prentice; Hailin Lu; Matthew A Price; Anatoli Kamali; Etienne Karita; Shabir Lakhi; Eduard J Sanders; Omu Anzala; Susan Allen; Paul A Goepfert; Eric Hunter; Jill Gilmour; Jianming Tang Journal: J Virol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Nisha M Fernandes; Glenn P Taylor; Cedric Manlhiot; Brian W McCrindle; Michael Ho; Steven E S Miner; Adelle Atkinson; Edgar T Jaeggi; Lynne E Nield Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Ana Pascual-Dapena; Juan José Chillaron; Gemma Llauradó; Isabel Arnau-Barres; Juana Flores; Inmaculada Lopez-Montesinos; Luisa Sorlí; Juan Luis Martínez-Pérez; Silvia Gómez-Zorrilla; Juan Du; Natalia García-Giralt; Robert Güerri-Fernández Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Kenneth K Mbugua; Martha J Holmes; Mark F Cotton; Eva-Maria Ratai; Francesca Little; Aaron T Hess; Els Dobbels; Andre J W Van der Kouwe; Barbara Laughton; Ernesta M Meintjes Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Jianming Tang; Xuelin Li; Matthew A Price; Eduard J Sanders; Omu Anzala; Etienne Karita; Anatoli Kamali; Shabir Lakhi; Susan Allen; Eric Hunter; Richard A Kaslow; Jill Gilmour Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 5.640