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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scott, Lesley E., Campbell, Jennifer, Westerman, Larry, Kestens, Luc, Vojnov, Lara, Kohastsu, Luciana, Nkengasong, John, Peter, Trevor, Stevens, Wendy
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