P-274. An Assessment of the Agreement between Qualitative and Quantitative Measures of CD4 Counts Amongst Persons Screened for an Advanced HIV Clinical Trial in Nigeria
Olukemi A Adekanmbi, Yahaya Mohammed, Iorhen Akase, Oche Agbaji, Simji Gomerep, Uche Unigwe, Juliet Mmerem, Asukwo Onukak, Vivian Kwaghe, Garba Iliyasu, Chiedozie Maduka, Bassey Ekeng, Peter Nwakile, Dimie Ogoina

TL;DR
This study compares a rapid qualitative CD4 test with a gold-standard quantitative test in Nigeria to assess their agreement in identifying HIV patients with low CD4 counts.
Contribution
The study evaluates the accuracy of a point-of-care CD4 test against quantitative flow cytometry in a real-world clinical setting in Nigeria.
Findings
The qualitative POC CD4 test correctly identified 78.1% of participants with CD4 counts ≤200 cells/mm³.
The test misclassified 94 participants who actually had CD4 counts >200 cells/mm³ based on the gold standard.
The study suggests that qualitative CD4 testing should complement, not replace, quantitative testing in clinical decisions.
Abstract
Advanced HIV disease (AHD) is of great concern in developing countries like Nigeria. Nigeria implemented an AHD package of care that includes rapid qualitative point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing to identify individuals with CD4 counts ≤200 cells/mm3, guiding further screening (e.g. TB lipoarabinomannan and cryptococcal antigen tests). However, the accuracy of this qualitative method compared to gold-standard quantitative CD4 testing via flow cytometry remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the agreement between POC qualitative CD4 testing and gold standard for detecting CD4 counts ≤200 cells/mm3 Data were collected retrospectively from records of individuals who had been screened for an AHD clinical trial from February to November 2024 at antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinics of 7 tertiary hospitals across 5 geo-political zones in Nigeria. Persons newly found to have acquired HIV or had…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHIV Research and Treatment · HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions · SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
