Cargando…

Performance characteristics of an instrument-free point-of-care CD4 test (VISITECT®CD4) for use in resource-limited settings

OBJECTIVE: CD4+ T lymphocyte count remains the most common biomarker of immune status and disease progression in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive individuals. VISITECT®CD4 is an instrument-free, low-cost point-of-care CD4 test with a cut-off of 350 CD4 cells/μL. This study aimed to evalua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vidhyavathi, Vairamohan, Iqbal, Hussain Syed, Kanthamani, Kannaiyan, Solomon, Sunil Suhas, Nandagopal, Paneerselvam, Luchters, Stanley, Pham, Minh D., Forbes, James, Crowe, Suzanne M., McMurran, Christopher, Anderson, David A., Balakrishnan, Pachamuthu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7536493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32985310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060520955028
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: CD4+ T lymphocyte count remains the most common biomarker of immune status and disease progression in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive individuals. VISITECT®CD4 is an instrument-free, low-cost point-of-care CD4 test with a cut-off of 350 CD4 cells/μL. This study aimed to evaluate VISITECT®CD4 test's diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Two hundred HIV-positive patients attending a tertiary HIV centre in South India were recruited. Patients provided venous blood for reference and VISITECT®CD4 tests. An additional finger-prick blood sample was obtained for VISITECT®CD4. VISITECT®CD4's diagnostic performance in identifying individuals with CD4 counts ≤350 cells/μL was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) taking flow cytometry as the reference. RESULTS: The overall agreement between VISITECT®CD4 and flow cytometry was 89.5% using venous blood and 81.5% using finger-prick blood. VISITECT®CD4 showed better performance using venous blood [sensitivity: 96.6% (95% confidence interval: 92.1%–98.9%), specificity: 70.9% (57.1%–82.4%), PPV: 89.7% (83.9%–94.0%) and NPV: 88.6% (75.4%–96.2%)] than using finger-prick blood [sensitivity: 84.8% (77.9%–90.2%), specificity: 72.7% (59.0%–83.9%), PPV: 89.1% (82.7%–93.8%) and NPV: 64.5% (51.3%–76.3%)]. CONCLUSION: VISITECT®CD4 performed well using venous blood, demonstrating its potential utility in decentralization of CD4 testing services in resource-constrained settings.