HIV-1新近感染两种检测方法在临床应用中的对比

目的比较HIV抗体明胶颗粒凝集检测法(Micro Liquid HIV PA,ML-PA)与BED-CEIA法在新近感染HIV患者中的检测结果,为ML-PA法的临床应用提供经验。方法对确认为HIV阳性的300例新报告感染者及132例长期感染样本分别用两种方法进行新近感染检测,获得2009-2011年第二季度常规检测新报告感染者及吸毒人群、男男同性恋人群新近感染比例。结果 300例新报告感染者样本中259例样本被两种方法同时判定为HIV长期感染,有4例样本被同时判定为HIV新近感染,两种方法对HIV-1是否为新近感染和长期感染结果判定不同(P=0.012<0.05)且一致性较差(Kappa值=0.127);对132例长期感染的样本检测结果显示,BED-CEIA法中128例判为长期感染,而ML-PA法中131例判定为长期感染。对2009-2011年第二季度常规检测新报告感染者及吸毒人群、男男性行为人群用两种方法进行检测得出结果显示流行趋势相同。结论两种方法检测新近感染结果显示一致性较差,但是可以用两种方法共同分析新近感染比例,ML-PA法可以进行更多、更大范围的应用。

Comparative Research on Two Test Methods to Recent HIV-1 Infection

Objective Comparative analysis the Micro Liquid HIV PA method and BED-CEIA method in recent HIV-1 infection test by practical application. To supply the clinical data of using ML-PA to detect the HIV-1 recent infection. Methods A total of 300 newly reported positive samples and 132 previous positive samples were detected by BED-CEIA method and ML-PA method. Obtain the proportions of recent HIV infections among newly reported HIV cases, IDUs, MSM between 2009 and 2011. Results Three hundred newly reported positive samples were tested by the ML-PA and BED-CEIA methods,among them 4 samples was determined as recent HIV infections and 259 samples was determined as previous HIV infections, the uniform rate was low(P=0.012<0.05, Kappa=0.127). 132 previous positive samples wear also tested by the ML-PA and BED-CEIA methods,among them 131 and 128 samples was determined as previous HIV infections. The results of two methods to test newly reported positive samples between 2009 and 2011, IDUs, MSM, which showed the same prevalence trend. Conclusion Although two methods had difference on test recent HIV-1 infection, prevalence trend analysis was feasible. The ML-PA method had applicative value.