Cargando…

Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing increases patient accessibility to assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility. This review evaluates field performance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of currently available POC CD4 technologies. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pham, Minh D., Agius, Paul A., Romero, Lorena, McGlynn, Peter, Anderson, David, Crowe, Suzanne M., Luchters, Stanley
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073828/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27769181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2
_version_ 1782461638179291136
author Pham, Minh D.
Agius, Paul A.
Romero, Lorena
McGlynn, Peter
Anderson, David
Crowe, Suzanne M.
Luchters, Stanley
author_facet Pham, Minh D.
Agius, Paul A.
Romero, Lorena
McGlynn, Peter
Anderson, David
Crowe, Suzanne M.
Luchters, Stanley
author_sort Pham, Minh D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing increases patient accessibility to assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility. This review evaluates field performance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of currently available POC CD4 technologies. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched for field studies published between January 2005 and January 2015 of six POC CD4 platforms: PointCare NOW™, Alere Pima™ CD4, Daktari™ CD4 Counter, CyFlow® CD4 miniPOC, BD FACSPresto™, and MyT4™ CD4. Due to limited data availability, meta-analysis was conducted only for diagnostic performance of Pima at a threshold of 350 cells/μl, applying a bivariate multi-level random-effects modelling approach. A covariate extended model was also explored to test for difference in diagnostic performance between capillary and venous blood. RESULTS: Twenty seven studies were included. Published field study results were found for three of the six POC CD4 tests, 24 of which used Pima. For Pima, test failure rates varied from 2 to 23 % across study settings. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.88–0.95) and 0.87 (95 % CI = 0.85–0.88) respectively. Diagnostic performance by blood sample type (venous vs. capillary) revealed non-significant differences in sensitivity (0.94 vs 0.89) and specificity (0.86 vs 0.87), respectively in the extended model (Wald χ(2)(2) = 4.77, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: POC CD4 testing can provides reliable results for making treatment decision under field conditions in low-resource settings. The Pima test shows a good diagnostic performance at CD4 cut-off of 350 cells/μl. More data are required to evaluate performance of POC CD4 testing using venous versus capillary blood in LMICs which might otherwise influence clinical practice. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5073828
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50738282016-10-26 Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis Pham, Minh D. Agius, Paul A. Romero, Lorena McGlynn, Peter Anderson, David Crowe, Suzanne M. Luchters, Stanley BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing increases patient accessibility to assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility. This review evaluates field performance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of currently available POC CD4 technologies. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched for field studies published between January 2005 and January 2015 of six POC CD4 platforms: PointCare NOW™, Alere Pima™ CD4, Daktari™ CD4 Counter, CyFlow® CD4 miniPOC, BD FACSPresto™, and MyT4™ CD4. Due to limited data availability, meta-analysis was conducted only for diagnostic performance of Pima at a threshold of 350 cells/μl, applying a bivariate multi-level random-effects modelling approach. A covariate extended model was also explored to test for difference in diagnostic performance between capillary and venous blood. RESULTS: Twenty seven studies were included. Published field study results were found for three of the six POC CD4 tests, 24 of which used Pima. For Pima, test failure rates varied from 2 to 23 % across study settings. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.88–0.95) and 0.87 (95 % CI = 0.85–0.88) respectively. Diagnostic performance by blood sample type (venous vs. capillary) revealed non-significant differences in sensitivity (0.94 vs 0.89) and specificity (0.86 vs 0.87), respectively in the extended model (Wald χ(2)(2) = 4.77, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: POC CD4 testing can provides reliable results for making treatment decision under field conditions in low-resource settings. The Pima test shows a good diagnostic performance at CD4 cut-off of 350 cells/μl. More data are required to evaluate performance of POC CD4 testing using venous versus capillary blood in LMICs which might otherwise influence clinical practice. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5073828/ /pubmed/27769181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Pham, Minh D.
Agius, Paul A.
Romero, Lorena
McGlynn, Peter
Anderson, David
Crowe, Suzanne M.
Luchters, Stanley
Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort performance of point-of-care cd4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073828/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27769181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2
work_keys_str_mv AT phamminhd performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT agiuspaula performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT romerolorena performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mcglynnpeter performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT andersondavid performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT crowesuzannem performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT luchtersstanley performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis