Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Evaluation of dynabeads and cytospheres compared with flow cytometry to enumerate CD4+ T cells in HIV-infected ugandans on antiretroviral therapy
Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Volume 48, No. 3, Year 2008
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based monitoring of antiretroviral therapy is essential but adds a significant cost to HIV care. The World Health Organization 2006 guidelines support the use of CD4 lymphocyte count (CD4) to define treatment failure in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We compared CD4 obtained on replicate samples from 497 HIV-positive Ugandans (before and during ART) followed for 18 months by 2 manual bead-based assays, Dynabeads (Dynal Biotech), and Cytospheres (Beckman Coulter) with those generated by flow cytometry at the Infectious Diseases Institute in Kampala, Uganda. RESULTS: We tested 1671 samples (123 before ART) with Dynabeads and 1444 samples (91 before ART) with Cytospheres. Mean CD4 was 231 cells/mm (SD, 139) and 239 cells/mm (SD, 140) by Dynabeads and flow cytometry, respectively. Mean CD4 was 186 cells/mm (SD, 101) and 242 cells/mm (SD, 136) by Cytospheres and flow cytometry, respectively. The mean difference in CD4 count by flow cytometry versus Dynabeads were 8.8 cells/mm (SD, 76.0) and versus Cytospheres were 56.8 cells/mm (SD, 85.8). The limits of agreement were -140.9 to 158.4 cells/mm for Dynabeads and -112.2 to 225.8 cells/mm for Cytospheres. Linear regression analysis showed higher correlation between flow cytometry and Dynabeads (r = 0.85, r = 0.73, slope = 0.85, intercept = 28) compared with the correlation between flow cytometry and Cytospheres (r = 0.78, r = 0.60, slope = 0.58, intercept = 45). Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve to predict CD4 <200 cells/mm was 0.928 for Dynabeads and 0.886 for Cytospheres. CONCLUSION: Although Dynabeads and Cytospheres both underestimated CD4 lymphocyte count compared with flow cytometry, in resource-limited settings with low daily throughput, manual bead-based assays may provide a less expensive alternative to flow cytometry. © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Authors & Co-Authors
Lutwama, Fred
Uganda, Kampala
Academic Alliance for Aids Care and Prevention
Serwadda, Ronnie
Uganda, Kampala
Academic Alliance for Aids Care and Prevention
Mayanja-Kizza, Harriet
Uganda, Kampala
Makerere University
Shihab, Hasan M.
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Ronald, Allan R.
Uganda, Kampala
Academic Alliance for Aids Care and Prevention
Canada, Winnipeg
University of Manitoba
Kamya, Moses Robert K.
Uganda, Kampala
Academic Alliance for Aids Care and Prevention
Uganda, Kampala
Makerere University
Thomas, David L.
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Colantuoni, Elizabeth A.
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Quinn, Thomas Charles
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
United States, Bethesda
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Niaid
Moore, Richard D.
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Spacek, Lisa A.
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Statistics
Citations: 30
Authors: 11
Affiliations: 5
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1097/QAI.0b013e31817bbc3a
ISSN:
15254135
Research Areas
Infectious Diseases
Study Approach
Quantitative
Study Locations
Uganda