These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance evaluation of BD FACSPresto™ point of care CD4 analyzer to enumerate CD4 counts for monitoring HIV infected individuals in Nigeria.
    Author: Negedu-Momoh OR, Jegede FE, Yakubu A, Balogun O, Abdullahi M, Badru T, Oladele EA, Agbakwuru C, Khamofu H, Torpey K.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2017; 12(5):e0178037. PubMed ID: 28542359.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Despite the upsurge in support and intervention of donor agencies in HIV care and treatment programing in Sub-Sahara African, antiretroviral (ART) programs are still confronted with access and coverage challenges which influence enrolment of new patients. This study investigated the validity of point of care BD FACSPresto™ CD4 analyzer for CD4+ cell count, overall agreement, correlation, sensitivity, and specificity in comparison to a reference standard flow cytometry method. We also assessed the feasibility of use among non-laboratorians. METHODS: Blood samples from 300 HIV infected individuals were analyzed for CD4+ T cell and CD4%, using finger prick capillary sample from 150 PMTCT clients and 150 ART clients at Murtala Mohammed Specialist Hospital, Kano, Nigeria. Their venous samples were compared on a flow cytometry reference method using BD FACSCount CD4+ count system. The accuracy of the BD FACSPresto machine in comparison to BD FACSCount was evaluated. Statistical analysis was carried out using STATA (version 12). Bland-Altman method and correlation analysis were used to analyze agreement between both measurements. In addition, sensitivity and specificity of both measurements were determined. Statistical significance was set at p-value <0.05. RESULTS: The mean bias and limit of agreement for CD4+ count between BD FACSPresto and BD FACS count machine were 7.49 (95% CI: 2.44 to 12.54) and -8.14 to 96.39 respectively. Further analysis revealed close agreement between BD FACSPresto and BD FACSCount with no significant difference between the two methods (p = .0.95). Using a threshold of 500 cells/μL, sensitivity and specificity of BD FACSPresto were 95.1% and 97.1% respectively, compared to BD FACSCount. There was no statistically significant difference in the misclassification between BD FACSPresto and BD FACSCount results (p = 0.23). Furthermore, sensitivity and specificity were similar when BD FACSPresto machine was operated by a nurse or laboratory scientist, there was no substantial difference in testing variability observed between laboratory and non-laboratory operators using the BD FACSPresto analyzer. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, BD FACSPresto Point of Care CD4+ count finger stick capillary blood results is a reliable method in comparison to venous sample cytometry method and no significant difference variability observed between laboratory personnel and non-laboratory operators. The BD FACSPresto is simple, more robust and easy to use equipment without significant variability in reliability by non-laboratory health care workers hence will be a valuable instrument in increasing access and coverage of CD4 estimations in developing countries. The introduction of the BD FACSPresto POC analyzer has a high potential in reducing patients waiting time and improving the overall quality of ART service and clients' satisfaction especially in rural settings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]