【摘要】 目的限制性抗原亲和力方法(简称LAg)与BED捕获酶联免疫试验(简称BED)在四川省男男性行为者(Men who have sex with men,简称MSM)人群中新发感染检测结果的比较,为该方法在四川省的推广应用和可能存在的问题提供参考。方法收集四川省2015年10个MSM哨点的新发感染检测样本274份,分别用LAg和BED进行检测,2检验分析两种方法新发感染结果判定的一致性,根据Mc Dougal法的中点公式分别计算并比较2种方法的HIV-1新发感染率。结果 274份纳入新发感染检测的样本,LAg判定为新发感染81人(29.56%,81/274),BED判定为新发感染111(40.51%,111/274)。2种方法判定结果的调整一致率为86.72%,2检验分析发现2种方法判定结果一致性差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),BED检出率较高。LAg的HIV-1新发感染率为7.14%(95%CI:5.58%-8.69%),BED的HIV-1新发感染率为7.54%(95%CI:6.13%-8.94%)。结论对于四川省2015年274例MSM哨点样本,LAg判定新发感染比例低于BED,用Mc Dougal法的中点公式计算2种方法的HIV-1新发感染率结果基本一致。HIV-1新发感染率的观察不易采信绝对数值,应以观察变化趋势为宜。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the results of Limiting antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay and BED-capture enzyme immunoassay in the population of men who have sex with men,to provide advice on the application prospect and potential problem of Limiting antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay in Sichuan province. Methods A total of 274 HIV-positive sera of MSM population were tested both by LAg- Avidity and BED- CEIA and the consistency between the two assays was adjusted by Mc Nermar method. Compared the recent HIV- 1 incidence rate estimated by Mc Dougal both in BED-CEIA and LAg-Avidity. Results Of all 274 samples,LAgAvidity and BED-CEIA detected 81( 29. 56%,81 / 274) and 111( 40. 51%,111 / 274) positive cases,respectively. There were 86. 72% adjusted consistency between the two assays. The Mc Nermar method showed that the uniform rate was low( P < 0. 05),there were more recent HIV- 1 infection in BED- CEIA. The recent HIV- 1 infection rates were 7. 14%( 95% CI: 5. 58%- 8. 69%) for LAg- Avidity EIA and 7. 54%( 95%CI: 6. 13%- 8. 94%) for BED-CEIA. Conclusion About 274 samples of MSM sentinel in Sichuan Province in 2015,the number of recent HIV- 1 infection by LAg-Avidity EIA were less than that by BED-CEIA,and there was no much difference in the recent HIV- 1 incidence between LAg-Avidity EIA and BED-CEIA. The observation of recent HIV- 1 infection is to keep watching a trend which is better than an absolute value.更多还原