中华检验医学杂志
中華檢驗醫學雜誌
중화검험의학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF LABORATORY MEDICINE
2014年
8期
613-616
,共4页
吉阳涛%韩晓旭%欧阳金鸣%王亚男%尚红
吉暘濤%韓曉旭%歐暘金鳴%王亞男%尚紅
길양도%한효욱%구양금명%왕아남%상홍
HIV抗原%HIV抗体%电化学%发光测定法%酶联免疫吸附测定%免疫测定
HIV抗原%HIV抗體%電化學%髮光測定法%酶聯免疫吸附測定%免疫測定
HIV항원%HIV항체%전화학%발광측정법%매련면역흡부측정%면역측정
HIV antigens%HIV antibodies%Electrochemistry%Luminescent measurements%Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay%Immunoassay
目的 比较3种不同技术原理的第四代HIV筛查试剂诊断HIV感染检测窗口期的差异.方法 采用第四代电化学发光法(ECLIA)、化学发光法(CLIA)及酶联免疫法(ELISA)3种不同技术原理的HIV抗原抗体联合检测试剂,对2009至2011年本实验室男男同性恋高危人群队列发现的急性HIV感染者26例的37份血浆样本及购买的国际HIV感染阳转血清盘22份样本进行检测,比较3种试剂检测HIV感染的窗口期长短及敏感度.3种试剂检测HIV早期感染敏感度比较使用卡方检验进行统计学分析.结果 3种试剂检测窗口期长短不同.对国际HIV感染阳转血清盘22份样本,ECLIA和CLIA试剂检测结果一致,窗口期比ELISA试剂估计缩短至少1～5d.对本室收集的急性HIV感染37份样本,ECLIA和CLIA试剂全部检出,ELISA试剂结果一致率为94.6％.3种试剂对HIV感染阳转前样本检测敏感度差异有统计学意义,ECLIA和CLIA试剂敏感度相同(93.5％),高于ELISA试剂敏感度(71.0％)(x2=5.14,P＜0.05).结论 3种不同技术原理四代筛查试剂对HIV早期感染检测窗口期及敏感度存在差异,ECLIA试剂和CLIA试剂间无差异,优于ELISA试剂.
目的 比較3種不同技術原理的第四代HIV篩查試劑診斷HIV感染檢測窗口期的差異.方法 採用第四代電化學髮光法(ECLIA)、化學髮光法(CLIA)及酶聯免疫法(ELISA)3種不同技術原理的HIV抗原抗體聯閤檢測試劑,對2009至2011年本實驗室男男同性戀高危人群隊列髮現的急性HIV感染者26例的37份血漿樣本及購買的國際HIV感染暘轉血清盤22份樣本進行檢測,比較3種試劑檢測HIV感染的窗口期長短及敏感度.3種試劑檢測HIV早期感染敏感度比較使用卡方檢驗進行統計學分析.結果 3種試劑檢測窗口期長短不同.對國際HIV感染暘轉血清盤22份樣本,ECLIA和CLIA試劑檢測結果一緻,窗口期比ELISA試劑估計縮短至少1～5d.對本室收集的急性HIV感染37份樣本,ECLIA和CLIA試劑全部檢齣,ELISA試劑結果一緻率為94.6％.3種試劑對HIV感染暘轉前樣本檢測敏感度差異有統計學意義,ECLIA和CLIA試劑敏感度相同(93.5％),高于ELISA試劑敏感度(71.0％)(x2=5.14,P＜0.05).結論 3種不同技術原理四代篩查試劑對HIV早期感染檢測窗口期及敏感度存在差異,ECLIA試劑和CLIA試劑間無差異,優于ELISA試劑.
목적 비교3충불동기술원리적제사대HIV사사시제진단HIV감염검측창구기적차이.방법 채용제사대전화학발광법(ECLIA)、화학발광법(CLIA)급매련면역법(ELISA)3충불동기술원리적HIV항원항체연합검측시제,대2009지2011년본실험실남남동성련고위인군대렬발현적급성HIV감염자26례적37빈혈장양본급구매적국제HIV감염양전혈청반22빈양본진행검측,비교3충시제검측HIV감염적창구기장단급민감도.3충시제검측HIV조기감염민감도비교사용잡방검험진행통계학분석.결과 3충시제검측창구기장단불동.대국제HIV감염양전혈청반22빈양본,ECLIA화CLIA시제검측결과일치,창구기비ELISA시제고계축단지소1～5d.대본실수집적급성HIV감염37빈양본,ECLIA화CLIA시제전부검출,ELISA시제결과일치솔위94.6％.3충시제대HIV감염양전전양본검측민감도차이유통계학의의,ECLIA화CLIA시제민감도상동(93.5％),고우ELISA시제민감도(71.0％)(x2=5.14,P＜0.05).결론 3충불동기술원리사대사사시제대HIV조기감염검측창구기급민감도존재차이,ECLIA시제화CLIA시제간무차이,우우ELISA시제.
Objective To evaluate the detectability of HIV antigen-antibody in the window period of acute infection by three HIV antigen-antibody assays.Methods Twenty-two samples of HIV seroconversion serum panels and thirty-seven HIV acute infected plasm samples from our laboratory collected from cohort study of men who have sex with men between 2009 and 2011,were assayed by ECLIA,CLIA and ELISA methods.All assays were evaluated for the ability to detect HIV in the window period,and the sensitivity of each assay for acute samples was analyzed.Chi square test was used for statistical analysis.Results The ability of detecting HIV in the window period of each assay was different.For HIV seroconversion serum panels,the results of ECLIA and CLIA assays were consistent,and the window period was shortened at least 1 to 5 days compared with ELISA assay.For HIV acute samples,all were HIV positive by ECLIA or CLIA assay,but for ELISA assay,94.6％ was positive.For samples before seroconversion,ECLIA and CLIA assay had the same sensitivity (93.5％),which is superior to ELISA assay (71.0％) (x2 =5.14,P ＜0.05).Conclusion The ability of detecting HIV in the window period was different for each assay.The results of ECLIA and CLIA assay are consistent,superior to ELISA assay.
