Zeh Clement, Rose Charles E, Inzaule Seth, Desai Mitesh A, Otieno Fredrick, Humwa Felix, Akoth Benta, Omolo Paul, Chen Robert T, Kebede Yenew, Samandari Taraz
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, United States.
Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya.
J Immunol Methods. 2017 Sep;448:44-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 May 18.
CD4+ T-lymphocyte count testing at the point-of-care (POC) may improve linkage to care of persons diagnosed with HIV-1 infection, but the accuracy of POC devices when operated by lay-counselors in the era of task-shifting is unknown. We examined the accuracy of Alere's Pima™ POC device on both capillary and venous blood when performed by lay-counselors and laboratory technicians.
In Phase I, we compared the perfomance of POC against FACSCalibur™ for 280 venous specimens by laboratory technicians. In Phase II we compared POC performance by lay-counselors versus laboratory technicians using 147 paired capillary and venous specimens, and compared these to FACSCalibur™. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman analyses, concordance correlation coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity at treatment eligibility thresholds of 200, 350, and 500cells/μl.
Phase I: POC sensitivity and specificity were 93.0% and 84.1% at 500cells/μl, respectively. Phase II: Good agreement was observed for venous POC results from both lay-counselors (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)=0.873, bias -86.4cells/μl) and laboratory technicians (CCC=0.920, bias -65.7cells/μl). Capillary POC had good correlation: lay-counselors (CCC=0.902, bias -71.2cells/μl), laboratory technicians (CCC=0.918, bias -63.0cells/μl). Misclassification at the 500 cells/μl threshold for venous blood was 13.6% and 10.2% for lay-counselors and laboratory technicians and 12.2% for capillary blood in both groups. POC tended to under-classify the CD4 values with increasingly negative bias at higher CD4 values.
Pima™ results were comparable to FACSCalibur™ for both venous and capillary specimens when operated by lay-counselors. POC CD4 testing has the potential to improve linkage to HIV care without burdening laboratory technicians in resource-limited settings.
即时检测(POC)CD4 + T淋巴细胞计数可能会改善与HIV - 1感染确诊者的护理联系,但在任务转移时代,由外展咨询员操作时POC设备的准确性尚不清楚。我们研究了外展咨询员和实验室技术人员使用Alere公司的Pima™ POC设备检测毛细血管血和静脉血时的准确性。
在第一阶段,实验室技术人员对280份静脉血标本,比较了POC与FACSCalibur™的检测性能。在第二阶段,我们使用147对配对的毛细血管血和静脉血标本,比较了外展咨询员和实验室技术人员操作POC的性能,并与FACSCalibur™进行比较。统计分析包括Bland - Altman分析、一致性相关系数、敏感性以及在200、350和500个细胞/微升治疗合格阈值下的特异性。
第一阶段:在500个细胞/微升时,POC的敏感性和特异性分别为93.0%和84.1%。第二阶段:外展咨询员(一致性相关系数(CCC)=0.873,偏差 - 86.4个细胞/微升)和实验室技术人员(CCC =0.920,偏差 - 65.7个细胞/微升)操作静脉血POC的结果一致性良好。毛细血管血POC有良好的相关性:外展咨询员(CCC =0.902,偏差 - 71.2个细胞/微升),实验室技术人员(CCC =0.918,偏差 - 63.0个细胞/微升)。静脉血在500个细胞/微升阈值时,外展咨询员和实验室技术人员的错误分类率分别为13.6%和10.2%,两组毛细血管血的错误分类率均为12.2%。POC往往会对CD4值进行错误分类,在较高的CD4值时偏差越来越负。
外展咨询员操作时,Pima™检测静脉血和毛细血管血标本的结果与FACSCalibur™相当。在资源有限的环境中,POC CD4检测有潜力改善与HIV护理的联系,而不会给实验室技术人员带来负担。