Evaluation of Specimen Types for Pima CD4 Point-of-Care Testing: Advantages of Fingerstick Blood Collection into an EDTA Microtube
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

CDC STACKS serves as an archival repository of CDC-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other public health information authored or co-authored by CDC or funded partners. As a repository, CDC STACKS retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i

Evaluation of Specimen Types for Pima CD4 Point-of-Care Testing: Advantages of Fingerstick Blood Collection into an EDTA Microtube

Filetype[PDF-2.83 MB]


English

Details:

  • Alternative Title:
    PLoS One
  • Personal Author:
  • Description:
    Introduction

    Effective point-of-care testing (POCT) is reliant on optimal specimen collection, quality assured testing, and expedited return of results. Many of the POCT are designed to be used with fingerstick capillary blood to simplify the blood collection burden. However, fingerstick blood collection has inherent errors in sampling. An evaluation of the use of capillary and venous blood with CD4 POCT was conducted.

    Methods

    Three different specimen collection methods were evaluated for compatibility using the Alere Pima CD4 assay at 5 HIV/AIDS healthcare sites in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. At each site, whole blood specimens were collected from enrolled patients by venipuncture and fingerstick. Pima CD4 testing was performed at site of collection on venipuncture specimens (Venous) and fingerstick blood directly applied to a Pima CD4 cartridge (Capillary-Direct) and collected into an EDTA microtube (Capillary-Microtube). Venous blood was also tested at the laboratory by the reference CD4 method and Pima for comparison analysis.

    Results

    All three specimen collection methods were successfully collected by healthcare workers for use with the Pima CD4 assay. When compared to the reference CD4 method, Pima CD4 testing with the Capillary-Microtube method performed similarly to Venous, while Pima CD4 counts with the Capillary-Direct method were slightly more biased (-20 cells/μL) and variable (-229 to +189 cells/μL limit of agreement). Even though all three collection methods had similar invalid Pima testing rates (10.5%, 9.8%, and 8.3% for Capillary-Direct, Capillary-Microtube, and Venous respectively), the ability to perform repeat testing with Capillary-Microtube and Venous specimens increased the likelihood of acquiring a valid CD4 result with the Pima assay.

    Conclusions

    Capillary blood, either directly applied to Pima CD4 cartridges or collected in an EDTA microtube, and venous blood are suitable specimens for Pima CD4 testing. The advantages of capillary blood collection in an EDTA microtube are that it uses fingerstick collection which mimics venous blood and allows extra testing without additional blood collection.

  • Subjects:
  • Source:
  • Pubmed ID:
    30138398
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC6107158
  • Document Type:
  • Place as Subject:
  • Volume:
    13
  • Issue:
    8
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov