Article

Evaluation of a flow cytometry method for CD4 T cell enumeration based on volumetric primary CD4 gating using thermoresistant reagents

Immunology Unit, Laboratory of Bacteriology-Virology, CHU Le Dantec University Teaching Hospital, BP 7325 Dakar, Senegal.
Journal of immunological methods (Impact Factor: 2.01). 07/2011; 372(1-2):7-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2011.07.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Laboratory follow-up of HIV patients in resource-limited settings requires appropriate instruments for CD4 T cell enumeration. In this study, we evaluated the application of a simplified, mobile and robust flow cytometry system, the Apogee Auto 40 analyzer (Auto40) using thermoresistant reagents, for CD4 T cell enumeration. We measured the absolute CD4 counts in fresh whole blood samples from 170 Senegalese subjects, including 129 HIV-positive (HIV+) patients and 41 HIV-negative (HIV-) controls. Based on volumetric primary CD4 gating, cells were stained with commercially available reagents (Easy MoAb CD4;Bio-D, Valenzano, Italy) and analyzed on the Auto40. The results were compared with those from the FACSCount system (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, USA). Repeatability analysis was performed on duplicate testing of 49 samples on both FACSCount and Auto40. The intra-run precision was measured by 10 replicates using 3 clinical blood samples with low, intermediate and high CD4 concentrations. The results from the two instruments were in good agreement. The percent similarity between the results of both instruments was 99%±relative standard deviation of 12.7%. The concordance correlation coefficient was 0.99. The absolute bias and limits of agreement (LOA) between the two instruments, calculated by Bland-Altman analysis, were clinically acceptable (bias: +4 cells/μl; LOA: -111 to +120 cells/μl). The clinical agreement between the two instruments at a cutoff of 200 CD4 cells/μl was 94%. The repeatability of measurements on the Auto40 was also similar to that observed with FACSCount system (bias +0.1 cells/μl, coefficient of variation 2.5% vs bias -1.1cells/μl, coefficient of variation 2.9% respectively). In conclusion, our results indicate that the Auto 40 system, using thermoresistant reagents, is suitable for CD4 T cell enumeration and will be a helpful tool to improve HIV laboratory monitoring in resource-limited settings.

Full-text

Available from: Makhtar Camara, May 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
217 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A new CD4 point-of-care instrument, the CyFlow miniPOC, which provides absolute and percentage CD4 T-cells, used for screening and monitoring of HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings, was introduced recently. We assessed the performance of this novel instrument in a reference laboratory and in a field setting in Senegal. A total of 321 blood samples were obtained from 297 adults and 24 children, all HIV-patients attending university hospitals in Dakar, or health centers in Ziguinchor. Samples were analyzed in parallel on CyFlow miniPOC, FACSCount CD4 and FACSCalibur to assess CyFlow miniPOC precision and accuracy. At the reference lab, CyFlow miniPOC, compared to FACSCalibur, showed an absolute mean bias of -12.6 cells/mm3 and a corresponding relative mean bias of -2.3% for absolute CD4 counts. For CD4 percentages, the absolute mean bias was -0.1%. Compared to FACSCount CD4, the absolute and relative mean biases were -31.2 cells/mm3 and -4.7%, respectively, for CD4 counts, whereas the absolute mean bias for CD4 percentages was 1.3%. The CyFlow miniPOC was able to classify HIV-patients eligible for ART with a sensitivity of ≥ 95% at the different ART-initiation thresholds (200, 350 and 500 CD4 cells/mm3). In the field lab, the room temperature ranged from 30 to 35°C during the working hours. At those temperatures, the CyFlow miniPOC, compared to FACSCount CD4, had an absolute and relative mean bias of 7.6 cells/mm3 and 2.8%, respectively, for absolute CD4 counts, and an absolute mean bias of 0.4% for CD4 percentages. The CyFlow miniPOC showed sensitivity equal or greater than 94%. The CyFlow miniPOC showed high agreement with FACSCalibur and FACSCount CD4. The CyFlow miniPOC provides both reliable absolute CD4 counts and CD4 percentages even under the field conditions, and is suitable for monitoring HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0116663. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0116663 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measurement of CD4+ T-lymphocytes (CD4) is a crucial parameter in the management of HIV patients, particularly in determining eligibility to initiate antiretroviral treatment (ART). A number of technologies exist for CD4 enumeration, with considerable variation in cost, complexity, and operational requirements. We conducted a systematic review of the performance of technologies for CD4 enumeration. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE using a pre-defined search strategy. Data on test accuracy and precision included bias and limits of agreement with a reference standard, and misclassification probabilities around CD4 thresholds of 200 and 350 cells/μl over a clinically relevant range. The secondary outcome measure was test imprecision, expressed as % coefficient of variation. Thirty-two studies evaluating 15 CD4 technologies were included, of which less than half presented data on bias and misclassification compared to the same reference technology. At CD4 counts <350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -35.2 to +13.1 cells/μl while at counts >350 cells/μl, bias ranged from -70.7 to +47 cells/μl, compared to the BD FACSCount as a reference technology. Misclassification around the threshold of 350 cells/μl ranged from 1-29% for upward classification, resulting in under-treatment, and 7-68% for downward classification resulting in overtreatment. Less than half of these studies reported within laboratory precision or reproducibility of the CD4 values obtained. A wide range of bias and percent misclassification around treatment thresholds were reported on the CD4 enumeration technologies included in this review, with few studies reporting assay precision. The lack of standardised methodology on test evaluation, including the use of different reference standards, is a barrier to assessing relative assay performance and could hinder the introduction of new point-of-care assays in countries where they are most needed.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0115019. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0115019 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cell counting is one of the basic needs of most biological experiments. Numerous methods and systems have been studied to improve the reliability of counting. However, at present, manual cell counting performed with a hemocytometer still represents the gold standard, despite several problems limiting reproducibility and repeatability of the counts and, at the end, jeopardizing their reliability in general. We present our own approach based on image processing techniques to improve counting reliability. It works in two stages: first building a high-resolution image of the hemocytometer's grid, then counting the live and dead cells by tagging the image with flags of different colours. In particular, we introduce GridMos (http://sourceforge.net/p/gridmos), a fully-automated mosaicing method to obtain a mosaic representing the whole hemocytometer's grid. In addition to offering more significant statistics, the mosaic “freezes” the culture status, thus permitting analysis by more than one operator. Finally, the mosaic achieved can thus be tagged by using an image editor, thus markedly improving counting reliability. The experiments performed confirm the improvements brought about by the proposed counting approach in terms of both reproducibility and repeatability, also suggesting the use of a mosaic of an entire hemocytometer's grid, then labelled trough an image editor, as the best likely candidate for the new gold standard method in cell counting.
    Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 09/2014; 117(3). DOI:10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.09.004 · 1.09 Impact Factor