IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0154000.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of PIMATM CD4 System for Decentralization of Immunological Monitoring of HIV-Infected Patients in Senegal

Author

Listed:
  • Babacar Faye
  • Moustapha Mbow
  • Mame Cheikh Seck
  • Babacar Mbengue
  • Djiril Wade
  • Makhtar Camara
  • Cathy Cissé
  • Salimata Guèye Diouf
  • Babacar Ndao
  • Audrey Djibo
  • Maguette Dème Sylla Niang
  • Tandakha Ndiaye
  • Michael P Grillo
  • Alioune Dièye

Abstract

Background: HIV infection is a concern in the army troupes because of the risk behaviour of the military population. In order to allow regular access to CD4+ T cell enumeration of military personnel as well as their dependents and civilians living with HIV, the Senegalese Army AIDS program is implementing PIMATM Alere technology in urban and semi-urban military medical centres. Validation such device is therefore required prior their wide implementation. The purpose of this study was to compare CD4+ T cell count measurements between the PIMATM Alere to the BD FACSCountTM. Methodology: We selected a total of 200 subjects including 50 patients with CD4+ T-cells below 200/mm3, 50 between 200 and 350/mm3, 50 between 351 and 500/mm3, and 50 above 500/mm3. CD4+ T-cell count was performed on venous blood using the BD FASCountTM as reference method and the PIMATM Point of Care technology. The mean biases and limits of agreement between the PIMATM Alere and BD FACSCountTM were assessed with the Bland-Altman analysis, the linear regression performed using the Passing-Bablok regression analysis, and the percent similarity calculated using the Scott method. Results: Our data have shown a mean difference of 22.3 cells/mm3 [95%CI:9.1–35.5] between the BD FACSCountTM and PIMATM Alere CD4 measurements. However, the mean differences of the two methods was not significantly different to zero when CD4+ T-cell count was below 350/mm3 (P = 0.76). The Passing-Bablok regression in categorized CD4 counts has also showed concordance correlation coefficient of 0.89 for CD4+ T cell counts below 350/mm3 whilst it was 0.5 when CD4 was above 350/mm3. Conclusion: Overall, our data have shown that for low CD4 counts, the results from the PIMATM Alere provided accurate CD4+ T cell counts with a good agreement compared to the FACSCountTM.

Suggested Citation

  • Babacar Faye & Moustapha Mbow & Mame Cheikh Seck & Babacar Mbengue & Djiril Wade & Makhtar Camara & Cathy Cissé & Salimata Guèye Diouf & Babacar Ndao & Audrey Djibo & Maguette Dème Sylla Niang & Tanda, 2016. "Evaluation of PIMATM CD4 System for Decentralization of Immunological Monitoring of HIV-Infected Patients in Senegal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0154000
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154000
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154000&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0154000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily P Hyle & Ilesh V Jani & Jonathan Lehe & Amanda E Su & Robin Wood & Jorge Quevedo & Elena Losina & Ingrid V Bassett & Pamela P Pei & A David Paltiel & Stephen Resch & Kenneth A Freedberg & Trevor, 2014. "The Clinical and Economic Impact of Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Mozambique and Other Resource-Limited Settings: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0154000. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.