English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  In the era of “test and treat strategy”, CD4 testing remains an important tool for monitoring HIV-infected individuals. Since conventional methods of CD4 count measurement are costly and cumbersome, POC CD4 counting technique are more affordable and practical for countries with limited resources. Before introducing such methods in Morocco, we decided to assess their reliability.    Methods  In this study 92 blood samples from HIV-infected patients, were tested by PIMA and FACSPresto to derive CD4 count. Flow cytometry using FacsCalibur, was used as reference method for CD4 count comparison. Linear regression, Bland–Altman analysis were performed to assess correlation and agreement between these POC methods and the reference method. In addition, sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and misclassification percentage at 350 and 200 CD4 count thresholds; were also determined. Finally, because FACSPresto can also measure hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, 52 samples were used to compare FACSPresto against an automated hematology analyzer.    Results  The coefficient of determination R 2  was 0.93 for both methods. Bland–Altman analysis displayed a mean bias of − 32.3 and − 8.1 cells/µl for PIMA and FACSPresto, respectively. Moreover, with a threshold of 350 CD4 count, PIMA displayed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, were 88.57%, 94.12%, 91.18%, 92.31%; respectively. FACSPresto showed 88.23%, 96.23%, 93.75% and 92.73%; respectively. Furthermore, the upward misclassification percentage was 8.57 and 5.88%, for PIMA and FACSPresto, respectively; whereas the downward misclassification percentage was 7.84% and 7.54%; respectively. With 200 cells/µl threshold, PIMA had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 83.33%, 98.53%, 93.75% and 95.71%, respectively. Regarding FACSPresto, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV was 82.35%, 98.57%, 88.57% and 95.83%; respectively. Upward misclassification percentage was 5.56% and 5.88%, for PIMA and FACSPresto, respectively; whereas downward misclassification percentage was 4.41% and 4.29%; respectively. Finally, the hemoglobin measurement evaluation displayed an R 2  of 0.80 and a mean bias of − 0.12 with a LOA between − 1.75 and 1.51.    Conclusion  When compared to the reference method, PIMA and FACSPresto have shown good performance, for CD4 counting. The introduction of such POC technology will speed up the uptake of patients in the continuum of HIV care, in our country.

Assessment of two POC technologies for CD4 count in Morocco