BACKGROUND: CD4(+) T-cell enumeration (CD4 count) is used as a criterion to initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV patients and to monitor treatment efficacy. However, simple, affordable, and reliable point-of-care (POC) instruments adapted to resource-limited settings are still lacking. The PIMA CD4 analyzer is a new POC instrument for CD4 counting that uses disposable cartridges and a battery-powered analyzer. METHODS: Whole blood samples were taken by venipuncture or by finger prick from 300 subjects, including HIV-infected patients and HIV (-) controls. CD4 counts were measured by PIMA (using venous or capillary blood) and by FACSCount (using venous blood) considered as the reference. RESULTS: Similar CD4 counts were obtained by PIMA and FACSCount using either HIV+ venous blood or HIV+ finger-prick blood samples. However, with a concordance coefficient of 0.88 and a Pearson correlation of 0.89, finger-prick blood performed not as good as venous blood (0.97 and 0.98, respectively). For a clinical decision to start ART at 200 CD4 cells per microliter, sensitivity of PIMA was 90%/91% and specificity 98%/96% for venous/finger-prick blood, respectively, and for a treatment threshold of 350 CD4 cells per microliter, the sensitivity was 98%/91% and the specificity was 79%/80% for venous/finger-prick blood, respectively. Repeatability (precision) on venous blood resulted in a coefficient of variation of 4%. Using finger-prick blood, the average instrument error frequency resulting in aborted analyses was 14%. CONCLUSIONS: PIMA is a good POC instrument for screening adult HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings for treatment eligibility. Its performance on finger-prick blood is not as good as on venous blood. Adequate training for correct use of finger-prick blood samples is mandatory.
BACKGROUND:CD4(+) T-cell enumeration (CD4 count) is used as a criterion to initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV patients and to monitor treatment efficacy. However, simple, affordable, and reliable point-of-care (POC) instruments adapted to resource-limited settings are still lacking. The PIMA CD4 analyzer is a new POC instrument for CD4 counting that uses disposable cartridges and a battery-powered analyzer. METHODS: Whole blood samples were taken by venipuncture or by finger prick from 300 subjects, including HIV-infectedpatients and HIV (-) controls. CD4 counts were measured by PIMA (using venous or capillary blood) and by FACSCount (using venous blood) considered as the reference. RESULTS: Similar CD4 counts were obtained by PIMA and FACSCount using either HIV+ venous blood or HIV+ finger-prick blood samples. However, with a concordance coefficient of 0.88 and a Pearson correlation of 0.89, finger-prick blood performed not as good as venous blood (0.97 and 0.98, respectively). For a clinical decision to start ART at 200 CD4 cells per microliter, sensitivity of PIMA was 90%/91% and specificity 98%/96% for venous/finger-prick blood, respectively, and for a treatment threshold of 350 CD4 cells per microliter, the sensitivity was 98%/91% and the specificity was 79%/80% for venous/finger-prick blood, respectively. Repeatability (precision) on venous blood resulted in a coefficient of variation of 4%. Using finger-prick blood, the average instrument error frequency resulting in aborted analyses was 14%. CONCLUSIONS: PIMA is a good POC instrument for screening adult HIV-infectedpatients in resource-limited settings for treatment eligibility. Its performance on finger-prick blood is not as good as on venous blood. Adequate training for correct use of finger-prick blood samples is mandatory.
Authors: Rumours Lumala; Thomas van den Akker; Carol Ann Metcalf; Emma Diggle; Bote Zamadenga; Kingsley Mbewa; Ann Akkeson Journal: Malawi Med J Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 0.875
Authors: Paul K Drain; Emily P Hyle; Farzad Noubary; Kenneth A Freedberg; Douglas Wilson; William R Bishai; William Rodriguez; Ingrid V Bassett Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Sarah E Rutstein; Deborah Kamwendo; Lebah Lugali; Isaac Thengolose; Gerald Tegha; Susan A Fiscus; Julie A E Nelson; Mina C Hosseinipour; Abdoulaye Sarr; Sundeep Gupta; Frank Chimbwandira; Reuben Mwenda; Ronald Mataya Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Bharat S Parekh; Chin-Yih Ou; Peter N Fonjungo; Mireille B Kalou; Erin Rottinghaus; Adrian Puren; Heather Alexander; Mackenzie Hurlston Cox; John N Nkengasong Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Emily P Hyle; Ilesh V Jani; Katherine L Rosettie; Robin Wood; Benjamin Osher; Stephen Resch; Pamela P Pei; Paolo Maggiore; Kenneth A Freedberg; Trevor Peter; Robert A Parker; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-09-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Vivek Jain; Teri Liegler; Jane Kabami; Gabriel Chamie; Tamara D Clark; Douglas Black; Elvin H Geng; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Joseph K Wong; Mohamed Abdel-Mohsen; Nitin Sonawane; Francesca T Aweeka; Harsha Thirumurthy; Maya L Petersen; Edwin D Charlebois; Moses R Kamya; Diane V Havlir Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 9.079
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