两种HIV-1新发感染检测方法的性能比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-17 04:17

本文选题：艾滋病病毒 + 新发感染　；参考：《现代预防医学》2017年21期

【摘要】：目的比较两种HIV-1新发感染检测方法的性能。方法应用BED-CEIA法和LAg-Avidity EIA法检测457份HIV-1感染者样本(包括117份已经接受抗病毒治疗的艾滋病病人样本和2014年部分新报告的HIV-1感染者样本340份),比较弱阳性质控品(LPC)、强阳性质控品(HPC)、阴性质控品(NC)和校准品(CAL)的OD值和OD(n)值的标准差、变异系数和平均值,比较确认实验和初筛实验检测结果的一致性,并且计算两种方法对接受抗病毒治疗的艾滋病病人样本的误判率。结果 16次实验的弱阳性质控品、强阳性质控品、阴性质控品和校准品OD值的变异系数在25%以内,经校准品校准后强阳性质控品和弱阳性质控品ODn值的变异系数减小至10%以内。117份接受抗病毒治疗的艾滋病病人样本,BED-CEIA法将其中19份样本误判为新发感染,误判率为16.23%(19/117);LAg-Avidity EIA法将其中17份样本误判为新发感染,误判率为14.52%(17/117)。结论 BED-CEIA法和LAg-Avidity EIA法检测重复性和稳定性均较好,LAg-Avidity EIA法的误判率略低于BED-CEIA法的误判率(即特异性更好),但在检测前均需将抗病毒治疗样本剔出。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the performance of two new HIV-1 infection detection methods. Methods BED-CEIA and LAg-Avidity EIA methods were used to detect 457 samples of HIV-1 infected persons (including 117 samples of AIDS patients who had received anti-viral therapy and 340 samples of some newly reported HIV-1 infections in 2014). The standard deviation of OD value and ODN value of positive quality control product (HPC), negative quality control product (NC) and calibration product (CALL), The coefficient of variation and the average value were compared between the confirmed test and the primary screening test, and the misjudgment rate of the two methods for AIDS patients receiving antiviral therapy was calculated. Results the variation coefficient of OD value of weak positive quality control, strong positive quality control, negative quality control and calibrated product in 16 experiments was less than 25%. After calibration, the coefficient of variation of ODn value of strong positive quality control and weak positive quality control was reduced to less than 10%. The BED-CEIA method misjudged 19 of them as new infection. The miscalculation rate was 16.23 / 117% LAg-Avidity EIA, and 17 of the 17 samples were misjudged as new infections, and the miscalculation rate was 14.52% / 117%. Conclusion the repeatability and stability of BED-CEIA and LAg-Avidity EIA methods are better than that of BED-CEIA method. The misjudgment rate of LAg-Avidity EIA method is slightly lower than that of BED-CEIA method (that is, specificity is better), but antiviral treatment samples should be removed before detection.
【作者单位】：江西省疾病预防控制中心;
【基金】：江西省卫生计生委科技项目(20166005)
【分类号】：R512.91

【相似文献】