BACKGROUND: CD4+ T-lymphocyte count testing at the point-of-care (POC) may improve linkage to care of persons diagnosed with HIV-1 infection, but the accuracy of POC devices when operated by lay-counselors in the era of task-shifting is unknown. We examined the accuracy of Alere's Pima™ POC device on both capillary and venous blood when performed by lay-counselors and laboratory technicians. METHODS: In Phase I, we compared the perfomance of POC against FACSCalibur™ for 280 venous specimens by laboratory technicians. In Phase II we compared POC performance by lay-counselors versus laboratory technicians using 147 paired capillary and venous specimens, and compared these to FACSCalibur™. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman analyses, concordance correlation coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity at treatment eligibility thresholds of 200, 350, and 500cells/μl. RESULTS: Phase I: POC sensitivity and specificity were 93.0% and 84.1% at 500cells/μl, respectively. Phase II: Good agreement was observed for venous POC results from both lay-counselors (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)=0.873, bias -86.4cells/μl) and laboratory technicians (CCC=0.920, bias -65.7cells/μl). Capillary POC had good correlation: lay-counselors (CCC=0.902, bias -71.2cells/μl), laboratory technicians (CCC=0.918, bias -63.0cells/μl). Misclassification at the 500 cells/μl threshold for venous blood was 13.6% and 10.2% for lay-counselors and laboratory technicians and 12.2% for capillary blood in both groups. POC tended to under-classify the CD4 values with increasingly negative bias at higher CD4 values. CONCLUSIONS: Pima™ results were comparable to FACSCalibur™ for both venous and capillary specimens when operated by lay-counselors. POC CD4 testing has the potential to improve linkage to HIV care without burdening laboratory technicians in resource-limited settings. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND:CD4+ T-lymphocyte count testing at the point-of-care (POC) may improve linkage to care of persons diagnosed with HIV-1 infection, but the accuracy of POC devices when operated by lay-counselors in the era of task-shifting is unknown. We examined the accuracy of Alere's Pima™ POC device on both capillary and venous blood when performed by lay-counselors and laboratory technicians. METHODS: In Phase I, we compared the perfomance of POC against FACSCalibur™ for 280 venous specimens by laboratory technicians. In Phase II we compared POC performance by lay-counselors versus laboratory technicians using 147 paired capillary and venous specimens, and compared these to FACSCalibur™. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman analyses, concordance correlation coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity at treatment eligibility thresholds of 200, 350, and 500cells/μl. RESULTS: Phase I: POC sensitivity and specificity were 93.0% and 84.1% at 500cells/μl, respectively. Phase II: Good agreement was observed for venous POC results from both lay-counselors (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)=0.873, bias -86.4cells/μl) and laboratory technicians (CCC=0.920, bias -65.7cells/μl). Capillary POC had good correlation: lay-counselors (CCC=0.902, bias -71.2cells/μl), laboratory technicians (CCC=0.918, bias -63.0cells/μl). Misclassification at the 500 cells/μl threshold for venous blood was 13.6% and 10.2% for lay-counselors and laboratory technicians and 12.2% for capillary blood in both groups. POC tended to under-classify the CD4 values with increasingly negative bias at higher CD4 values. CONCLUSIONS:Pima™ results were comparable to FACSCalibur™ for both venous and capillary specimens when operated by lay-counselors. POC CD4 testing has the potential to improve linkage to HIV care without burdening laboratory technicians in resource-limited settings. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alere PIMA; Point of care CD4 evaluation
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: Bruce A Larson; Kathryn Schnippel; Buyiswa Ndibongo; Thembisile Xulu; Alana Brennan; Lawrence Long; Matthew P Fox; Sydney Rosen Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Ruanne V Barnabas; Heidi van Rooyen; Elioda Tumwesigye; Pamela M Murnane; Jared M Baeten; Hilton Humphries; Bosco Turyamureeba; Philip Joseph; Meighan Krows; James P Hughes; Connie Celum Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Lisa J Nelson; Michael Beusenberg; Vincent Habiyambere; Nathan Shaffer; Marco A Vitoria; Raul Gonzalez Montero; Philippa J Easterbrook; Meg C Doherty Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Katharina Kranzer; Darshini Govindasamy; Nathan Ford; Victoria Johnston; Stephen D Lawn Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Annemarie Namuniina; Fredrick Lutwama; Victoria Menya Biribawa; David Kizza; Brian Roy Kabuubi; Paul Kato Kitandwe; Juliet Mpendo; Annet Nanvubya; Julius Ssempiira; Annet Nalutaaya; Ali Ssetaala; Sabrina Welsh; Matt A Price; Noah Kiwanuka; Bernard Ssentalo Bagaya Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Mary E Schmitz; Karen Chang; Nichole Arnett; Luciana Kohatsu; Ruth Lemwayi; Michael Mwasekaga; John Nkengasong; Omotayo Bolu; Fausta Mosha; Larry Westerman Journal: Afr J Lab Med Date: 2019-11-21
Authors: Benjamin Heidt; Williane F Siqueira; Kasper Eersels; Hanne Diliën; Bart van Grinsven; Ricardo T Fujiwara; Thomas J Cleij Journal: Biosensors (Basel) Date: 2020-09-24