Cargando…
A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing
BACKGROUND: The Alere point-of-care (POC) Pima™ CD4 analyzer allows for decentralized testing and expansion to testing antiretroviral therapy (ART) eligibility. A consortium conducted a pooled multi-data technical performance analysis of the Pima CD4. METHODS: Primary data (11,803 paired observation...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26208867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0396-2 |
_version_ | 1782382860492079104 |
---|---|
author | Scott, Lesley E. Campbell, Jennifer Westerman, Larry Kestens, Luc Vojnov, Lara Kohastsu, Luciana Nkengasong, John Peter, Trevor Stevens, Wendy |
author_facet | Scott, Lesley E. Campbell, Jennifer Westerman, Larry Kestens, Luc Vojnov, Lara Kohastsu, Luciana Nkengasong, John Peter, Trevor Stevens, Wendy |
author_sort | Scott, Lesley E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Alere point-of-care (POC) Pima™ CD4 analyzer allows for decentralized testing and expansion to testing antiretroviral therapy (ART) eligibility. A consortium conducted a pooled multi-data technical performance analysis of the Pima CD4. METHODS: Primary data (11,803 paired observations) comprised 22 independent studies between 2009–2012 from the Caribbean, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, USA and Europe, using 6 laboratory-based reference technologies. Data were analyzed as categorical (including binary) and numerical (absolute) observations using a bivariate and/or univariate random effects model when appropriate. RESULTS: At a median reference CD4 of 383 cells/μl the mean Pima CD4 bias is -23 cells/μl (average bias across all CD4 ranges is 10 % for venous and 15 % for capillary testing). Sensitivity of the Pima CD4 is 93 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.4 % - 94.9 %) at 350 cells/μl and 96 % (CI 95.2 % - 96.9 %) at 500 cells/μl, with no significant difference between venous and capillary testing. Sensitivity reduced to 86 % (CI 82 % - 89 %) at 100 cells/μl (for Cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) screening), with a significant difference between venous (88 %, CI: 85 % - 91 %) and capillary (79 %, CI: 73 % - 84 %) testing. Total CD4 misclassification is 2.3 % cases at 100 cells/μl, 11.0 % at 350 cells/μl and 9.5 % at 500 cells/μl, due to higher false positive rates which resulted in more patients identified for treatment. This increased by 1.2 %, 2.8 % and 1.8 %, respectively, for capillary testing. There was no difference in Pima CD4 misclassification between the meta-analysis data and a population subset of HIV+ ART naïve individuals, nor in misclassification among operator cadres. The Pima CD4 was most similar to Beckman Coulter PanLeucogated CD4, Becton Dickinson FACSCalibur and FACSCount, and less similar to Partec CyFlow reference technologies. CONCLUSIONS: The Pima CD4 may be recommended using venous-derived specimens for screening (100 cells/μl) for reflex CrAg screening and for HIV ART eligibility at 350 cells/μl and 500 cells/μl thresholds using both capillary and venous derived specimens. These meta-analysis findings add to the knowledge of acceptance criteria of the Pima CD4 and future POC tests, but implementation and impact will require full costing analysis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4515022 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45150222015-07-26 A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing Scott, Lesley E. Campbell, Jennifer Westerman, Larry Kestens, Luc Vojnov, Lara Kohastsu, Luciana Nkengasong, John Peter, Trevor Stevens, Wendy BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: The Alere point-of-care (POC) Pima™ CD4 analyzer allows for decentralized testing and expansion to testing antiretroviral therapy (ART) eligibility. A consortium conducted a pooled multi-data technical performance analysis of the Pima CD4. METHODS: Primary data (11,803 paired observations) comprised 22 independent studies between 2009–2012 from the Caribbean, Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, USA and Europe, using 6 laboratory-based reference technologies. Data were analyzed as categorical (including binary) and numerical (absolute) observations using a bivariate and/or univariate random effects model when appropriate. RESULTS: At a median reference CD4 of 383 cells/μl the mean Pima CD4 bias is -23 cells/μl (average bias across all CD4 ranges is 10 % for venous and 15 % for capillary testing). Sensitivity of the Pima CD4 is 93 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.4 % - 94.9 %) at 350 cells/μl and 96 % (CI 95.2 % - 96.9 %) at 500 cells/μl, with no significant difference between venous and capillary testing. Sensitivity reduced to 86 % (CI 82 % - 89 %) at 100 cells/μl (for Cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) screening), with a significant difference between venous (88 %, CI: 85 % - 91 %) and capillary (79 %, CI: 73 % - 84 %) testing. Total CD4 misclassification is 2.3 % cases at 100 cells/μl, 11.0 % at 350 cells/μl and 9.5 % at 500 cells/μl, due to higher false positive rates which resulted in more patients identified for treatment. This increased by 1.2 %, 2.8 % and 1.8 %, respectively, for capillary testing. There was no difference in Pima CD4 misclassification between the meta-analysis data and a population subset of HIV+ ART naïve individuals, nor in misclassification among operator cadres. The Pima CD4 was most similar to Beckman Coulter PanLeucogated CD4, Becton Dickinson FACSCalibur and FACSCount, and less similar to Partec CyFlow reference technologies. CONCLUSIONS: The Pima CD4 may be recommended using venous-derived specimens for screening (100 cells/μl) for reflex CrAg screening and for HIV ART eligibility at 350 cells/μl and 500 cells/μl thresholds using both capillary and venous derived specimens. These meta-analysis findings add to the knowledge of acceptance criteria of the Pima CD4 and future POC tests, but implementation and impact will require full costing analysis. BioMed Central 2015-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4515022/ /pubmed/26208867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0396-2 Text en © Scott et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Scott, Lesley E. Campbell, Jennifer Westerman, Larry Kestens, Luc Vojnov, Lara Kohastsu, Luciana Nkengasong, John Peter, Trevor Stevens, Wendy A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing |
title | A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing |
title_full | A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing |
title_fullStr | A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing |
title_full_unstemmed | A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing |
title_short | A meta-analysis of the performance of the Pima(TM) CD4 for point of care testing |
title_sort | meta-analysis of the performance of the pima(tm) cd4 for point of care testing |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26208867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0396-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT scottlesleye ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT campbelljennifer ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT westermanlarry ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT kestensluc ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT vojnovlara ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT kohastsuluciana ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT nkengasongjohn ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT petertrevor ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT stevenswendy ametaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT scottlesleye metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT campbelljennifer metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT westermanlarry metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT kestensluc metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT vojnovlara metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT kohastsuluciana metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT nkengasongjohn metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT petertrevor metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting AT stevenswendy metaanalysisoftheperformanceofthepimatmcd4forpointofcaretesting |