CAJ | 학술논문

目的分析BED捕获酶免疫试验(BED-CEIA)是否适合在大范围人群内应用,对BED-CEIA与队列研究获取HIV-1新发感染率的一致性和BED-CEIA错分现象对新发感染率结果影响进行系统评价.方法利用系统评价的方法分析符合纳入标准的文献,其中10篇入选BED-CEIA与队列研究获取HIV-1新发感染率一致性的探讨,11篇文献入选BED-CEIA的错分现象研究.结果 BED-CEIA计算的HIV-1新发感染率与队列观察的新发感染率一致性与研究地区、研究设计相关,非洲地区的一致性较差,BED-CEIA的样本采集时间与队列随访同步研究获取的新发感染率一致性较好.BED-CEIA的错分现象研究共收集到7303份长期感染者(LTI)样本,错分为新近感染的样本数为432,错分粗率为5.9%,其95%CI:5.36～6.44.BED-CEIA的错分率与HIV-1感染时间和CD4+T淋巴细胞计数相关,而与人群(中国女性性工作者、静脉吸毒人群)和地区(中国与非洲地区)无显著相关.结论 BED-CEIA计算的HIV-1新发感染率与队列研究观察的新发感染率,其一致性随研究地区和研究设计的不同而有差异;BED-CEIA错分现象与HIV-1感染者的免疫状况相关.
목적 분석BED포획매면역시험(BED-CEIA)시부괄합재대범위인군내응용,대BED-CEIA여대렬연구획취HIV-1신발감염솔적일치성화BED-CEIA착분현상대신발감염솔결과영향진행계통평개.방법 이용계통평개적방법분석부합납입표준적문헌,기중10편입선BED-CEIA여대렬연구획취HIV-1신발감염솔일치성적탐토,11편문헌입선BED-CEIA적착분현상연구.결과 BED-CEIA계산적HIV-1신발감염솔여대렬관찰적신발감염솔일치성여연구지구、연구설계상관,비주지구적일치성교차,BED-CEIA적양본채집시간여대렬수방동보연구획취적신발감염솔일치성교호.BED-CEIA적착분현상연구공수집도7303빈장기감염자(LTI)양본,착분위신근감염적양본수위432,착분조솔위5.9%,기95%CI:5.36～6.44.BED-CEIA적착분솔여HIV-1감염시간화CD4+T림파세포계수상관,이여인군(중국녀성성공작자、정맥흡독인군)화지구(중국여비주지구)무현저상관.결론 BED-CEIA계산적HIV-1신발감염솔여대렬연구관찰적신발감염솔,기일치성수연구지구화연구설계적불동이유차이;BED-CEIA착분현상여HIV-1감염자적면역상황상관.
Objective To study whether BED-capture enzyme immunoassay (CEIA) is feasible to be used in wide-ranging population, we collect papers and conference abstracts related to BED-CEIA and HIV-1 incidence. Methods 10 papers are included for the discussion, regarding the concordance between the estimated HIV-1 incidence from BED-CEIA and the results from a cohort studies; and 11 papers are selected to discuss the related misclassification on the estimation of HIV-1incidence. Results Concordance between the two sets is related to the districts and design of research. Results from Africa are not so satisfactory, but researches, those BED-CEIA samples are collected during the follow-up of the cohort study, have shown better outcomes than other ones. There are totally 7303 samples of LTI (long-term infections) collected for analyzing the misclassification of BED-CEIA. 432 LTI are misclassified as new infections, making the raw rate of misclassification as 5.9% with 95% confidential interval between 5.36 and 6.44. Data from systematic review shows that the BED-CEIA's misclassification rate relates to the count of CD4+T lymphocytes and time after the infection but has no relation to the classification of sub-populations (female sexual workers and intravenous drug users in China) and districts (China and Africa). Conclusion Our results reveal that the misclassification is relevant to the immune-status of the infected persons.