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.