Cargando…
Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of PIMA Point-of-Care (POC) CD4 testing in rural Rakai, Uganda. METHODS: 903 HIV positive persons attending field clinics provided a venous blood sample assessed on site using PIMA analyzers per manufacturer's specifications. The venous samples were then run on...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088928 |
_version_ | 1782306799665283072 |
---|---|
author | Galiwango, Ronald M. Lubyayi, Lawrence Musoke, Richard Kalibbala, Sarah Buwembo, Martin Kasule, Jjingo Serwadda, David Gray, Ronald H. Reynolds, Steven J. Chang, Larry W. |
author_facet | Galiwango, Ronald M. Lubyayi, Lawrence Musoke, Richard Kalibbala, Sarah Buwembo, Martin Kasule, Jjingo Serwadda, David Gray, Ronald H. Reynolds, Steven J. Chang, Larry W. |
author_sort | Galiwango, Ronald M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of PIMA Point-of-Care (POC) CD4 testing in rural Rakai, Uganda. METHODS: 903 HIV positive persons attending field clinics provided a venous blood sample assessed on site using PIMA analyzers per manufacturer's specifications. The venous samples were then run on FACSCalibur flow cytometry at a central facility. The Bland–Altman method was used to estimate mean bias and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for a CD4 threshold of <350 and <500 cells/uL for antiretroviral eligibility. RESULTS: There was a high correlation between PIMA and FACSCalibur CD4 counts (r = 0.943, p<0.001). Relative to FACSCalibur, the PIMA POC CD4 had negative mean bias of −34.6 cells/uL (95% LOA: −219.8 to 150.6) overall. The dispersion at CD4<350 cells/uL was 5.1 cells/uL (95% LOA: −126.6 to 136.8). For a threshold of CD4<350 cells/uL, PIMA venous blood had a sensitivity of 88.6% (95%CI 84.8–92.4%), specificity of 87.5% (95%CI 84.9–90.1%), NPV of 94.9% (95%CI 93.1–96.7%), and PPV of 74.4% (95%CI 69.6–79.2%). PIMA sensitivity and PPV significantly increased to 96.1% and 88.3% respectively with increased threshold of 500 cells/uL. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PIMA POC CD4 counts demonstrated negative bias compared to FACSCalibur. PIMA POC sensitivity improved significantly at a higher CD4 threshold of 500 than a 350 cells/uL threshold. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3948619 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39486192014-03-13 Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda Galiwango, Ronald M. Lubyayi, Lawrence Musoke, Richard Kalibbala, Sarah Buwembo, Martin Kasule, Jjingo Serwadda, David Gray, Ronald H. Reynolds, Steven J. Chang, Larry W. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of PIMA Point-of-Care (POC) CD4 testing in rural Rakai, Uganda. METHODS: 903 HIV positive persons attending field clinics provided a venous blood sample assessed on site using PIMA analyzers per manufacturer's specifications. The venous samples were then run on FACSCalibur flow cytometry at a central facility. The Bland–Altman method was used to estimate mean bias and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for a CD4 threshold of <350 and <500 cells/uL for antiretroviral eligibility. RESULTS: There was a high correlation between PIMA and FACSCalibur CD4 counts (r = 0.943, p<0.001). Relative to FACSCalibur, the PIMA POC CD4 had negative mean bias of −34.6 cells/uL (95% LOA: −219.8 to 150.6) overall. The dispersion at CD4<350 cells/uL was 5.1 cells/uL (95% LOA: −126.6 to 136.8). For a threshold of CD4<350 cells/uL, PIMA venous blood had a sensitivity of 88.6% (95%CI 84.8–92.4%), specificity of 87.5% (95%CI 84.9–90.1%), NPV of 94.9% (95%CI 93.1–96.7%), and PPV of 74.4% (95%CI 69.6–79.2%). PIMA sensitivity and PPV significantly increased to 96.1% and 88.3% respectively with increased threshold of 500 cells/uL. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PIMA POC CD4 counts demonstrated negative bias compared to FACSCalibur. PIMA POC sensitivity improved significantly at a higher CD4 threshold of 500 than a 350 cells/uL threshold. Public Library of Science 2014-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3948619/ /pubmed/24614083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088928 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Galiwango, Ronald M. Lubyayi, Lawrence Musoke, Richard Kalibbala, Sarah Buwembo, Martin Kasule, Jjingo Serwadda, David Gray, Ronald H. Reynolds, Steven J. Chang, Larry W. Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda |
title | Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda |
title_full | Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda |
title_fullStr | Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda |
title_full_unstemmed | Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda |
title_short | Field Evaluation of PIMA Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Rakai, Uganda |
title_sort | field evaluation of pima point-of-care cd4 testing in rakai, uganda |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088928 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT galiwangoronaldm fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT lubyayilawrence fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT musokerichard fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT kalibbalasarah fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT buwembomartin fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT kasulejjingo fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT serwaddadavid fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT grayronaldh fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT reynoldsstevenj fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda AT changlarryw fieldevaluationofpimapointofcarecd4testinginrakaiuganda |