Cargando…
CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy
BACKGROUND: Measurement of CD4(+) T-lymphocytes (CD4) is a crucial parameter in the management of HIV patients, particularly in determining eligibility to initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART). A number of technologies exist for CD4 enumeration, with considerable variation in cost, complexity, and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366094/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25790185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115019 |
_version_ | 1782362314722246656 |
---|---|
author | Peeling, Rosanna W. Sollis, Kimberly A. Glover, Sarah Crowe, Suzanne M. Landay, Alan L. Cheng, Ben Barnett, David Denny, Thomas N. Spira, Thomas J. Stevens, Wendy S. Crowley, Siobhan Essajee, Shaffiq Vitoria, Marco Ford, Nathan |
author_facet | Peeling, Rosanna W. Sollis, Kimberly A. Glover, Sarah Crowe, Suzanne M. Landay, Alan L. Cheng, Ben Barnett, David Denny, Thomas N. Spira, Thomas J. Stevens, Wendy S. Crowley, Siobhan Essajee, Shaffiq Vitoria, Marco Ford, Nathan |
author_sort | Peeling, Rosanna W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Measurement of CD4(+) T-lymphocytes (CD4) is a crucial parameter in the management of HIV patients, particularly in determining eligibility to initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART). A number of technologies exist for CD4 enumeration, with considerable variation in cost, complexity, and operational requirements. We conducted a systematic review of the performance of technologies for CD4 enumeration. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE using a pre-defined search strategy. Data on test accuracy and precision included bias and limits of agreement with a reference standard, and misclassification probabilities around CD4 thresholds of 200 and 350 cells/μl over a clinically relevant range. The secondary outcome measure was test imprecision, expressed as % coefficient of variation. Thirty-two studies evaluating 15 CD4 technologies were included, of which less than half presented data on bias and misclassification compared to the same reference technology. At CD4 counts <350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -35.2 to +13.1 cells/μl while at counts >350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -70.7 to +47 cells/μl, compared to the BD FACSCount as a reference technology. Misclassification around the threshold of 350 cells/μl ranged from 1-29% for upward classification, resulting in under-treatment, and 7-68% for downward classification resulting in overtreatment. Less than half of these studies reported within laboratory precision or reproducibility of the CD4 values obtained. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of bias and percent misclassification around treatment thresholds were reported on the CD4 enumeration technologies included in this review, with few studies reporting assay precision. The lack of standardised methodology on test evaluation, including the use of different reference standards, is a barrier to assessing relative assay performance and could hinder the introduction of new point-of-care assays in countries where they are most needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4366094 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43660942015-03-23 CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy Peeling, Rosanna W. Sollis, Kimberly A. Glover, Sarah Crowe, Suzanne M. Landay, Alan L. Cheng, Ben Barnett, David Denny, Thomas N. Spira, Thomas J. Stevens, Wendy S. Crowley, Siobhan Essajee, Shaffiq Vitoria, Marco Ford, Nathan PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Measurement of CD4(+) T-lymphocytes (CD4) is a crucial parameter in the management of HIV patients, particularly in determining eligibility to initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART). A number of technologies exist for CD4 enumeration, with considerable variation in cost, complexity, and operational requirements. We conducted a systematic review of the performance of technologies for CD4 enumeration. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE using a pre-defined search strategy. Data on test accuracy and precision included bias and limits of agreement with a reference standard, and misclassification probabilities around CD4 thresholds of 200 and 350 cells/μl over a clinically relevant range. The secondary outcome measure was test imprecision, expressed as % coefficient of variation. Thirty-two studies evaluating 15 CD4 technologies were included, of which less than half presented data on bias and misclassification compared to the same reference technology. At CD4 counts <350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -35.2 to +13.1 cells/μl while at counts >350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -70.7 to +47 cells/μl, compared to the BD FACSCount as a reference technology. Misclassification around the threshold of 350 cells/μl ranged from 1-29% for upward classification, resulting in under-treatment, and 7-68% for downward classification resulting in overtreatment. Less than half of these studies reported within laboratory precision or reproducibility of the CD4 values obtained. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of bias and percent misclassification around treatment thresholds were reported on the CD4 enumeration technologies included in this review, with few studies reporting assay precision. The lack of standardised methodology on test evaluation, including the use of different reference standards, is a barrier to assessing relative assay performance and could hinder the introduction of new point-of-care assays in countries where they are most needed. Public Library of Science 2015-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4366094/ /pubmed/25790185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115019 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 Peeling, Rosanna W. Sollis, Kimberly A. Glover, Sarah Crowe, Suzanne M. Landay, Alan L. Cheng, Ben Barnett, David Denny, Thomas N. Spira, Thomas J. Stevens, Wendy S. Crowley, Siobhan Essajee, Shaffiq Vitoria, Marco Ford, Nathan CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy |
title | CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy |
title_full | CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy |
title_fullStr | CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy |
title_full_unstemmed | CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy |
title_short | CD4 Enumeration Technologies: A Systematic Review of Test Performance for Determining Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy |
title_sort | cd4 enumeration technologies: a systematic review of test performance for determining eligibility for antiretroviral therapy |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366094/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25790185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115019 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT peelingrosannaw cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT solliskimberlya cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT gloversarah cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT crowesuzannem cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT landayalanl cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT chengben cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT barnettdavid cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT dennythomasn cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT spirathomasj cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT stevenswendys cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT crowleysiobhan cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT essajeeshaffiq cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT vitoriamarco cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy AT fordnathan cd4enumerationtechnologiesasystematicreviewoftestperformancefordeterminingeligibilityforantiretroviraltherapy |