NIAID Division of AIDS flow cytometry quality assessment program

Exploring the feasibility of multi-site flow cytometric processing of gut associated lymphoid tissue with centralized data analysis for multi-site clinical trials

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the development of a standardized approach to the collection of intestinal tissue from healthy volunteers, isolation of gut associated lymphoid tissue mucosal mononuclear cells (MMC), and characterization of mucosal T cell phenotypes by flow cytometry was sufficient to minimize differences in the normative ranges of flow parameters generated at two trial sites. Forty healthy male study participants were enrolled in Pittsburgh and Los Angeles. MMC were isolated from rectal biopsies using the same biopsy acquisition and enzymatic digestion protocols. As an additional comparator, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were collected from the study participants. For quality control, cryopreserved PBMC from a single donor were supplied to both sites from a central repository (qPBMC). Using a jointly optimized standard operating procedure, cells were isolated from tissue and blood and stained with monoclonal antibodies targeted to T cell phenotypic markers. Site-specific flow data were analyzed by an independent center which analyzed all data from both sites. Ranges for frequencies for overall CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, derived from the qPBMC samples, were equivalent at both UCLA and MWRI. However, there were significant differences across sites for the majority of T cell activation and memory subsets in qPBMC as well as PBMC and MMC. Standardized protocols to collect, stain, and analyze MMC and PBMC, including centralized analysis, can reduce but not exclude variability in reporting flow data within multi-site studies. Based on these data, centralized processing, flow cytometry, and analysis of samples may provide more robust data across multi-site studies. Centralized processing requires either shipping of fresh samples or cryopreservation and the decision to perform centralized versus site processing needs to take into account the drawbacks and restrictions associated with each method.

The Immunology Quality Assessment Proficiency Testing Program for CD3⁺4⁺ and CD3⁺8⁺ lymphocyte subsets: a ten year review via longitudinal mixed effects modeling

Since 1999, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Division of AIDS (NIAID DAIDS) has funded the Immunology Quality Assessment (IQA) Program with the goal of assessing proficiency in basic lymphocyte subset immunophenotyping for each North American laboratory supporting the NIAID DAIDS HIV clinical trial networks. Further, the purpose of this program is to facilitate an increase in the consistency of interlaboratory T-cell subset measurement (CD3(+)4(+)/CD3(+)8(+) percentages and absolute counts) and likewise, a decrease in intralaboratory variability. IQA T-cell subset measurement proficiency testing was performed over a ten-year period (January 2003-July 2012), and the results were analyzed via longitudinal analysis using mixed effects models. The goal of this analysis was to describe how a typical laboratory (a statistical modeling construct) participating in the IQA Program performed over time. Specifically, these models were utilized to examine trends in interlaboratory agreement, as well as successful passing of proficiency testing. Intralaboratory variability (i.e., precision) was determined by the repeated measures variance, while fixed and random effects were taken into account for changes in interlaboratory agreement (i.e., accuracy) over time. A flow cytometer (single-platform technology, SPT) or a flow cytometer/hematology analyzer (dual-platform technology, DPT) was also examined as a factor for accuracy and precision. The principal finding of this analysis was a significant (p<0.001) increase in accuracy of T-cell subset measurements over time, regardless of technology type (SPT or DPT). Greater precision was found in SPT measurements of all T-cell subset measurements (p<0.001), as well as greater accuracy of SPT on CD3(+)4(+)% and CD3(+)8(+)% assessments (p<0.05 and p<0.001, respectively). However, the interlaboratory random effects variance in DPT results indicates that for some cases DPT can have increased accuracy compared to SPT. Overall, these findings demonstrate that proficiency in and among IQA laboratories have, in general, improved over time and that platform type differences in performance do exist.

The 2005 Italian Quality Control Study for the evaluation of CD4 cells in centers involved in the treatment of HIV type 1 patients

We report the results of an external quality control program, including 17 Italian centers involved in the care of patients infected by HIV, to evaluate CD4 T cell count proficiency and reproducibility. The centers received two commercial stabilized blood preparations, one with "normal" and one with "low" CD4 T cell content. The centers were asked to process the samples two times, 1 week apart, with the same procedure used for samples from HIV patients. Most centers showed a good performance of CD4 frequency and absolute count determinations. In particular, the "low" sample was correctly analyzed by all centers; only two underestimated the "normal" sample CD4 frequency, and only one underestimated the CD4 absolute count by >100 CD4 cells/microl. Overall, our data suggest that most Italian laboratories provide reliable and reproducible results in evaluating CD4 T cells in HIV(+) samples.

Reproducibility of immunological tests used to assess multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome

Whether persons with multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome (MCS) have immunological abnormalities is unknown. To assess the reliability of selected immunological tests that have been hypothesized to be associated with MCS, replicate blood samples from 19 healthy volunteers, 15 persons diagnosed with MCS, and 11 persons diagnosed with autoimmune disease were analyzed in five laboratories for expression of four T-cell surface activation markers (CD25, CD26, CD38, and HLA-DR) and in four laboratories for autoantibodies (to smooth muscle, thyroid antigens, and myelin). For T-cell activation markers, the intralaboratory reproducibility was very good, with 90% of the replicates analyzed in the same laboratory differing by < or = 3%. Interlaboratory differences were statistically significant for all T-cell subsets except CD4+ cells, ranging from minor to eightfold for CD25+ subsets. Within laboratories, the date of analysis was significantly associated with the values for all cellular activation markers. Although reproducibility of autoantibodies could not be precisely assessed due to the rarity of abnormal results, there were inconsistencies across laboratories. The effect of shipping on all measurements, while sometimes statistically significant, was very small. These results support the reliability of fresh and shipped samples for detecting large (but perhaps not small) differences between groups of donors in the T-cell subsets tested. When comparing markers that are not well standardized, it may be important to distribute samples from different study groups evenly over time.

Standardization of lymphocyte antibody binding capacity - a multi-centre study

As quantitative flow cytometry is being increasingly used to characterize non-malignant and malignant disorders, interlaboratory standardization becomes an important issue. However, the lack of standardized methods and process controls with predefined antibody binding capacity values, limits direct interlaboratory comparison. The present study has addressed these issues using a stable whole blood product and a standardized antigen quantification protocol. It was demonstrated that: (i) a standard technical protocol can result in a high degree of interlaboratory concordance; (ii) interlaboratory variation of less than 12% can be achieved for CD4 antibody binding capacity values; and (iii) stable whole blood can be used as a process control with predefined antibody binding capacity values. Furthermore, using such an approach, a normal range was established for CD3, CD4 CD8 and CD19. These antigens appear to be expressed in a hierarchical manner, a factor that could be used as a procedural quality control measure.

Comparison of clinical features, CD4 and CD8 responses among patients with acute HIV-1 infection from Geneva, Seattle and Sydney

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical features and T-cell subsets among 160 patients with acute HIV-1 infection not treated with antiretroviral agents from three different locations (Geneva, Seattle and Sydney).

DESIGN

Patients with documented acute HIV-1 infection were enrolled in four prospective studies: one randomized placebo controlled trial (RCT) and three observational cohort studies.

SETTING

All patients were diagnosed and followed in three university affiliated tertiary clinical care centers.

METHODS

The chi-square test was used for comparing proportions and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for comparing continuous variables among these groups. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the variables independently associated with the duration of acute HIV-1 infection. The differences in mean CD4 and CD8 load between centers were assessed using the random-effect models for the longitudinal data.

RESULTS

Minor differences were noted in the frequency of symptoms among subjects enrolled at different locations. RCT patients reported a longer duration of symptoms (31 days) compared with that for observational patients (15 days; P < 0.0001). For the most common symptoms such as fever, skin rash, arthralgia, myalgia, and headaches, a longer duration was observed in the RCT group compared with that for observational patients (P range, 0.001 to < 0.0001). T-cells subsets within 100 days of seroconversion did not statistically differ by centre or by mode of recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest a selection bias toward patients with longer symptomatic acute HIV-1 infection enrolled in the RCT. Data collected from RCT are not comparable to that collected in observational studies. However, data from collaborative international studies can be combined.

The Italian quality control study for evaluation of CD4 cells in centres involved in the treatment of HIV-1 patients. Italian CD4 Quality Control Group

We report on the experience of establishing a national network for a quality control programme in evaluating CD4 cell counts in most Italian centres involved in the care of patients with HIV disease. The 68 centres were divided according to their geographical location into eight groups, and twice a year (tests A and B) they received three coded whole blood samples (two were replicates of the same sample) obtained from two informed HIV+ patients, one with CD4 counts/mm3 expected to be < 200 and one with values > 300. The medians of the determinations performed by the labs involved in each of the eight areas were taken as the 'true' values for each sample. Unsatisfactory performances for percentage of CD4 cells were identified as a CD4 analysis with residual values > or = +/- 5% and with deviates > or = +/- 2. For absolute numbers of CD4 cells, an unsatisfactory performance was defined as CD4 counts with residual > +/- 100 CD4 cells/mm3 and with deviates > or = +/- 2. The residual value is the CD4 value reported by each lab minus the median value. The deviate is the residual divided by the modified interquartile range (IQR x 0.75). Most of the centres provided reliable results. However, some labs failed to provide satisfactory results for percentages (6.25% of the tested labs for test A and 6.17% for test B) or absolute numbers (16.25% test A and 12.34% test B). Only 3.7% of the labs gave unsatisfactory results in both tests. Four of the unsatisfactory results from the two tests gave an error in absolute numbers > +/- 200 CD4 cells/mm3. Our data suggest that most Italian labs provide reliable results in evaluating the numbers of CD4 cells in HIV-1+ samples, but the importance of running a quality control programme is highlighted by our experience with those centres which provide unsatisfactory data which may lead to incorrect classification of the patients or assessment of treatment.