Iron overload, an immunosuppression marker in HIV-infected patients.

Purpose: Iron overload (IO) has been associated with increased cardiovascular risk (CVR) and metabolic syndrome (MS) in the general population; both elevated CVR and MS are frequent in HIV- patients. Our aim was to analyze the prevalence of IO in a cohort of asymptomatic patients with HIV infection, and related factors. Methods: Cross-sectional study of a cohort of HIV outpatients in regular follow-up. Demographic, epidemiological, clinical, analytical and therapeutic data were collected. Patients completed a questionnaire about CVR factors and 10-year CV disease risk estimation (Framingham score), underwent a physical exam, and a fasting blood analysis. IO was defined as a plasma ferritin level higher than 200 m/L in women and 300 m/L in men. Results: 571 patients (446 men, 125 women), with a mean age of 43.2 years, sexual transmission of HIV in 68.5%, median CD4 count 474 cell/μL (IQR: 308-666), and 36.3% Aids cases 86.2% were on antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 74.8% of them had undetectable HIV viral load 14.6% met MS criteria, and mean CVR at 10 years was 6.67%. IO was detected in 11% of cases. Patients with IO were more immunosuppressed (CD4 count 369 vs 483/μL, p<0.0001), presented a higher prevalence of detectable HIV viral load (17.6% vs 8.9%; p<0.005), and of Aids cases (14.9% vs 8.7%; p<0.023), and lower plasma levels of cholesterol, HDLc and LDLc (154 vs 183, 34 vs 43, 93 vs 110 mg/dL, respectively; p<0.0001. In the multivariate analysis, the only related factor was CD4 count <350 cell/μL (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.6-4.9; p<0.0001). IO was not associated with CVR nor with MS. Conclusions: IO is not uncommon in HIV patients, and it is only related with immunosuppression defined as CD4 count <350 cell/ mL, and in contrast to general population, it is not related with increased CVR nor with MS.

Evaluation of two HbA1c point-of-care analyzers.

BACKGROUND Measurement of HbA1c is the most important parameter to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. Different point-of-care devices for HbA1c are available. The aim of this study was to evaluate two point-of-care testing (POCT) analyzers (DCA Vantage from Siemens and Afinion from Axis-Shield). We studied the bias and precision as well as interference from carbamylated hemoglobin. METHODS Bias of the POCT analyzers was obtained by measuring 53 blood samples from diabetic patients with a wide range of HbA1c, 4%-14% (20-130 mmol/mol), and comparing the results with those obtained by the laboratory method: HPLC HA 8160 Menarini. Precision was performed by 20 successive determinations of two samples with low 4.2% (22 mmol/mol) and high 9.5% (80 mmol/mol) HbA1c values. The possible interference from carbamylated hemoglobin was studied using 25 samples from patients with chronic renal failure. RESULTS The means of the differences between measurements performed by each POCT analyzer and the laboratory method (95% confidence interval) were: 0.28% (p<0.005) (0.10-0.44) for DCA and 0.27% (p<0.001) (0.19-0.35) for Afinion. Correlation coefficients were: r=0.973 for DCA, and r=0.991 for Afinion. The mean bias observed by using samples from chronic renal failure patients were 0.2 (range -0.4, 0.4) for DCA and 0.2 (-0.2, 0.5) for Afinion. Imprecision results were: CV=3.1% (high HbA1c) and 2.97% (low HbA1c) for DCA, CV=1.95% (high HbA1c) and 2.66% (low HbA1c) for Afinion. CONCLUSIONS Both POCT analyzers for HbA1c show good correlation with the laboratory method and acceptable precision.