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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Galiwango, Ronald M., Lubyayi, Lawrence, Musoke, Richard, Kalibbala, Sarah, Buwembo, Martin, Kasule, Jjingo, Serwadda, David, Gray, Ronald H., Reynolds, Steven J., Chang, Larry W.
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