Cargando…
Field evaluation in Chad of community usage of CD4 T lymphocyte counting by alternative single-platform flow cytometry
BACKGROUND: Field and community evaluation of the routine usage of CD4 T counting platforms is essential in resource-poor countries for efficient and cost-effective monitoring of HIV-infected adults and children attending health care centers. METHODS: We herein addressed the principal issues raised...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849920/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24083615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-373 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Field and community evaluation of the routine usage of CD4 T counting platforms is essential in resource-poor countries for efficient and cost-effective monitoring of HIV-infected adults and children attending health care centers. METHODS: We herein addressed the principal issues raised by the implementation of the single-platform, volumetric Auto40 flow cytometer (Apogee Flow Systems Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK) in 8 community HIV monitoring laboratories of different levels throughout Chad. This is a country with particularly difficult conditions, both in terms of climate and vast geographical territory, making the decentralization of the therapeutic management of HIV-infected patients challenging. RESULTS: The routine usage of the Auto40 flow cytometers for a period of 5 years (2008–2013) confirms the reliability and robustness of the analyzer for community-based CD4 T cell enumeration in terms of both absolute numbers and percentages to enable accurate monitoring of HIV-infected adults and children. However, our observations suggest that the Auto40 mini flow cytometer is not suitable for all laboratories as it is oversized and ultimately very expensive. CONCLUSION: The Chad experience with the Auto40 flow cytometer suggests that its usage in resource-limited settings should be mainly reserved to reference (level 1) or district (level 2) laboratories, rather than to laboratories of health care centres (level 3). |
---|