Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp
Foundation of Public Utility

CD4 T-cell enumeration in a field setting: evaluation of CyFlow counter using the CD4 easy count kit-dry and Pima CD4 systems

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Wade, D. en_US
dc.contributor.author Diaw, P. A. en_US
dc.contributor.author Daneau, G. en_US
dc.contributor.author Camara, M. en_US
dc.contributor.author Dieye, T. N. en_US
dc.contributor.author Mboup, S. en_US
dc.contributor.author Kestens, L. en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2014-09-25T13:39:38Z
dc.date.available 2014-09-25T13:39:38Z
dc.date.issued 2013 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1932-6203 en_US
dc.identifier.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075484 en_US
dc.identifier.other ITG-B1B; ITG-B3B; ITG-BLA; DBM; U-IMMUN; JIF; DOI; FTA; E-only; Abstract; UPD56 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10390/7779
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: Flow Cytometry (FCM) is still considered to be the method of choice for accurate CD4 enumeration. However, the use of FCM in developing countries is problematic due to their cost and complexity. Lower-cost technologies have been introduced. We evaluated CyFlow Counter together with its lyophilized reagents, and Pima CD4 in high-temperature area, using FACSCount as reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole blood samples were consecutively collected by venipuncture from 111 HIV+ patients and 17 HIV-negative donors. CD4 T-cell enumeration was performed on CyFlow Counter, Pima CD4 and FACSCount. RESULTS: CyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 systems showed good correlation with FACSCount (slope of 0.82 and 0.90, and concordance rhoc of 0.94 and 0.98, respectively). CyFlow Counter showed absolute or relative biases (LOA) of -63 cells/mm(3) (-245 to 120) or -9.8% (-38.1 to 18.4) respectively, and Pima CD4 showed biases (LOA) of -30 cells/mm(3) (-160 to 101) or -3.5% (-41.0 to 33.9%). CyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 showed respectively 106.7% and 105.9% of similarity with FACSCount. According to WHO-2010 ART initiation threshold of 350 cells/mm(3), CyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 showed respectively sensibility of 100% and 97%, and specificity of 91% and 93%. CyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 were strongly correlated (slope of 1.09 and rhoc of 0.95). These alternative systems showed good agreement with bias of 33 cells/mm(3) (-132 to 203) or 6.3% (-31.2 to 43.8), and similarity of 104.3%. CONCLUSION: CyFlow Counter using CD4 easy count kit-dry and Pima CD4 systems can accurately provide CD4 T-cell counts with acceptable agreement to those of FACSCount. en_US
dc.language English en_US
dc.subject Viral diseases en_US
dc.subject HIV en_US
dc.subject AIDS en_US
dc.subject Diagnosis en_US
dc.subject Management en_US
dc.subject CD4 en_US
dc.subject T-cells en_US
dc.subject Enumeration en_US
dc.subject Flow cytometry en_US
dc.subject Evaluation en_US
dc.subject Accuracy en_US
dc.subject Cyflow en_US
dc.subject Lyophilization en_US
dc.subject Specificity en_US
dc.subject Sensitivity en_US
dc.subject Bias en_US
dc.title CD4 T-cell enumeration in a field setting: evaluation of CyFlow counter using the CD4 easy count kit-dry and Pima CD4 systems en_US
dc.type Article-E en_US
dc.citation.issue 9 en_US
dc.citation.jtitle PLoS ONE en_US
dc.citation.volume 8 en_US
dc.citation.pages e75484 en_US
dc.identifier.pmid http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24066184 en_US
dc.citation.jabbreviation PLoS ONE en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record