INTRODUCTION: CD4+ T-cell counting is usually performed on whole blood obtained from standard venipuncture. Venipuncture requires expertise, results in discomfort and generates biological waste. Capillary blood could be used to measure the levels of CD4+ T-cell in children, elderly and very ill patients. We studied the agreement between CD4+ T-cell counts and percent generated using venous blood with those obtained with capillary blood in HIV-infected adults and children in a resource-limited tropical setting. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consecutively enrolled a total of 152 adult and pediatric HIV-positive patients attending two outpatient clinics in Maputo City, Mozambique. We recruited individuals presenting for their routine clinical follow-up that included the determination of CD4+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood. For each subject, peripheral blood specimens were obtained by both venipuncture and finger prick. Specimens were tested using two flow cytometers, the FACSCount and the FACSCalibur. RESULTS: Absolute CD4+ T-cell counts obtained using capillary blood were in close agreement with those from venous blood both on the FACSCalibur (absolute bias=+12.3 cells/mm³, limits of agreement: -259.2 to +283.9, R²=0.96) and the FACSCount (absolute bias=+16.1 cells/mm³, limits of agreement: -209.2 to +241.5, R²=0.97). Percent CD4+ T-cell counts were measured only on the FACSCalibur also showed a good agreement with a bias of +0.6% and limits of agreement of -3.1 to +4.3. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute CD4+ T-cell counts and percent generated using capillary blood are in close agreement with those from venous blood. Point-Of-Care assays and standard flow cytometers can be deployed in a tiered laboratory network where both venous and capillary blood collection can be used for CD4+ T-cell enumeration.
INTRODUCTION:CD4+ T-cell counting is usually performed on whole blood obtained from standard venipuncture. Venipuncture requires expertise, results in discomfort and generates biological waste. Capillary blood could be used to measure the levels of CD4+ T-cell in children, elderly and very ill patients. We studied the agreement between CD4+ T-cell counts and percent generated using venous blood with those obtained with capillary blood in HIV-infected adults and children in a resource-limited tropical setting. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consecutively enrolled a total of 152 adult and pediatric HIV-positivepatients attending two outpatient clinics in Maputo City, Mozambique. We recruited individuals presenting for their routine clinical follow-up that included the determination of CD4+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood. For each subject, peripheral blood specimens were obtained by both venipuncture and finger prick. Specimens were tested using two flow cytometers, the FACSCount and the FACSCalibur. RESULTS: Absolute CD4+ T-cell counts obtained using capillary blood were in close agreement with those from venous blood both on the FACSCalibur (absolute bias=+12.3 cells/mm³, limits of agreement: -259.2 to +283.9, R²=0.96) and the FACSCount (absolute bias=+16.1 cells/mm³, limits of agreement: -209.2 to +241.5, R²=0.97). Percent CD4+ T-cell counts were measured only on the FACSCalibur also showed a good agreement with a bias of +0.6% and limits of agreement of -3.1 to +4.3. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute CD4+ T-cell counts and percent generated using capillary blood are in close agreement with those from venous blood. Point-Of-Care assays and standard flow cytometers can be deployed in a tiered laboratory network where both venous and capillary blood collection can be used for CD4+ T-cell enumeration.
Authors: Deborah K Glencross; Lindi M Coetzee; Mamsallah Faal; Martin Masango; Wendy S Stevens; Wd Francois Venter; Regina Osih Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 5.396
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
Authors: Madhuri Thakar; Francis Angira; Kovit Pattanapanyasat; Alan H B Wu; Maurice O'Gorman; Hui Zeng; Chenxue Qu; Bharati Mahajan; Kasama Sukapirom; Danying Chen; Yu Hao; Yan Gong; Monika De Arruda Indig; Sharon Graminske; Diana Orta; Nicole d'Empaire; Beverly Lu; Imelda Omana-Zapata; Clement Zeh Journal: Open AIDS J Date: 2017-10-24
Authors: Luciana Kohatsu; Omotayo Bolu; Mary E Schmitz; Karen Chang; Ruth Lemwayi; Nichole Arnett; Michael Mwasekaga; John Nkengasong; Fausta Mosha; Larry E Westerman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stanley Luchters; Karl Technau; Yasmin Mohamed; Matthew F Chersich; Paul A Agius; Minh D Pham; Mary L Garcia; James Forbes; Andrew Shepherd; Ashraf Coovadia; Suzanne M Crowe; David A Anderson Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: S W Tas; G J Wolbink; L Boekel; F Hooijberg; E H Vogelzang; P L Klarenbeek; W H Bos Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 5.156