Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing increases patient accessibility to assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility. This review evaluates field performance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of currently available POC CD4 technologies. Methods Eight electronic databases...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Minh D. Pham, Paul A. Agius, Lorena Romero, Peter McGlynn, David Anderson, Suzanne M. Crowe, Stanley Luchters
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2016-10-01
Series:BMC Infectious Diseases
Subjects:
CD4
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2
id doaj-9a0db9ba2e7a4cd58b47ed0987522444
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9a0db9ba2e7a4cd58b47ed09875224442020-11-25T01:43:47ZengBMCBMC Infectious Diseases1471-23342016-10-0116111710.1186/s12879-016-1931-2Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysisMinh D. Pham0Paul A. Agius1Lorena Romero2Peter McGlynn3David Anderson4Suzanne M. Crowe5Stanley Luchters6Burnet InstituteBurnet InstituteThe Alfred Hospital, The Ian Potter LibraryDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science, Monash UniversityBurnet InstituteBurnet InstituteBurnet InstituteAbstract Background Point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing increases patient accessibility to assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility. This review evaluates field performance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of currently available POC CD4 technologies. Methods Eight electronic databases were searched for field studies published between January 2005 and January 2015 of six POC CD4 platforms: PointCare NOW™, Alere Pima™ CD4, Daktari™ CD4 Counter, CyFlow® CD4 miniPOC, BD FACSPresto™, and MyT4™ CD4. Due to limited data availability, meta-analysis was conducted only for diagnostic performance of Pima at a threshold of 350 cells/μl, applying a bivariate multi-level random-effects modelling approach. A covariate extended model was also explored to test for difference in diagnostic performance between capillary and venous blood. Results Twenty seven studies were included. Published field study results were found for three of the six POC CD4 tests, 24 of which used Pima. For Pima, test failure rates varied from 2 to 23 % across study settings. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.88–0.95) and 0.87 (95 % CI = 0.85–0.88) respectively. Diagnostic performance by blood sample type (venous vs. capillary) revealed non-significant differences in sensitivity (0.94 vs 0.89) and specificity (0.86 vs 0.87), respectively in the extended model (Wald χ2(2) = 4.77, p = 0.09). Conclusions POC CD4 testing can provides reliable results for making treatment decision under field conditions in low-resource settings. The Pima test shows a good diagnostic performance at CD4 cut-off of 350 cells/μl. More data are required to evaluate performance of POC CD4 testing using venous versus capillary blood in LMICs which might otherwise influence clinical practice.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2CD4Point of care testingDiagnostic accuracySystematic reviewMeta-analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Minh D. Pham
Paul A. Agius
Lorena Romero
Peter McGlynn
David Anderson
Suzanne M. Crowe
Stanley Luchters
spellingShingle Minh D. Pham
Paul A. Agius
Lorena Romero
Peter McGlynn
David Anderson
Suzanne M. Crowe
Stanley Luchters
Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC Infectious Diseases
CD4
Point of care testing
Diagnostic accuracy
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
author_facet Minh D. Pham
Paul A. Agius
Lorena Romero
Peter McGlynn
David Anderson
Suzanne M. Crowe
Stanley Luchters
author_sort Minh D. Pham
title Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort performance of point-of-care cd4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
publisher BMC
series BMC Infectious Diseases
issn 1471-2334
publishDate 2016-10-01
description Abstract Background Point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing increases patient accessibility to assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility. This review evaluates field performance in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) of currently available POC CD4 technologies. Methods Eight electronic databases were searched for field studies published between January 2005 and January 2015 of six POC CD4 platforms: PointCare NOW™, Alere Pima™ CD4, Daktari™ CD4 Counter, CyFlow® CD4 miniPOC, BD FACSPresto™, and MyT4™ CD4. Due to limited data availability, meta-analysis was conducted only for diagnostic performance of Pima at a threshold of 350 cells/μl, applying a bivariate multi-level random-effects modelling approach. A covariate extended model was also explored to test for difference in diagnostic performance between capillary and venous blood. Results Twenty seven studies were included. Published field study results were found for three of the six POC CD4 tests, 24 of which used Pima. For Pima, test failure rates varied from 2 to 23 % across study settings. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.88–0.95) and 0.87 (95 % CI = 0.85–0.88) respectively. Diagnostic performance by blood sample type (venous vs. capillary) revealed non-significant differences in sensitivity (0.94 vs 0.89) and specificity (0.86 vs 0.87), respectively in the extended model (Wald χ2(2) = 4.77, p = 0.09). Conclusions POC CD4 testing can provides reliable results for making treatment decision under field conditions in low-resource settings. The Pima test shows a good diagnostic performance at CD4 cut-off of 350 cells/μl. More data are required to evaluate performance of POC CD4 testing using venous versus capillary blood in LMICs which might otherwise influence clinical practice.
topic CD4
Point of care testing
Diagnostic accuracy
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-016-1931-2
work_keys_str_mv AT minhdpham performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT paulaagius performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lorenaromero performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT petermcglynn performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT davidanderson performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT suzannemcrowe performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT stanleyluchters performanceofpointofcarecd4testingtechnologiesinresourceconstrainedsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_ 1725031587373907968