摘要
目的探讨不同免疫检验方法在抗人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)检测中的应用。方法选择2016年1月—2021年12月在清远市中医院初筛HIV阳性的72例获得性免疫缺陷综合征(AIDS)患者作为研究对象,收集所有患者的临床资料并进行回顾和分析。所有患者均进行抗HIV检测,依次采用电化学发光法和酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)检测,对两种检测结果不一致的标本采用免疫印迹法(WB)进行确证试验,比较电化学发光法和ELISA检测结果的准确性。结果①初筛结果:72例受检者经ELISA检测显示阳性57例(阳性率为79.17%),经电化学发光法检测显示阳性69例(阳性率为95.83%),二者比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);有15例患者采用两种检测方法所得结果不一致,初筛结果的符合率为79.17%。②WB验证:15例患者经WB检测确证显示,其中3例结果为阴性,12例结果为阳性。③诊断价值:ELISA检测的特异度为100%(12/12),敏感度为95%(57/60),阳性预测值为100%(57/57),阴性预测值为80%(12/15)。电化学发光法检测的特异度为100%(2/2),敏感度为95%(57/60),阳性预测值为95%(57/60),阴性预测值为0%(0/3)。两种方法的特异度和敏感度比较差异均无统计学意义(χ^(2)=0.152、0.364,P=0.452、0.298),但阴性预测值和阳性预测值比较差异均有统计学意义(χ^(2)=5.334、5.245,P=0.036、0.028)。ELISA与WB确证后结果比较, 值为0.815,一致性良好;电化学发光法检测结果与WB确证后结果比较, 值为0.706,一致性一般。结论ELISA和电化学发光法检测抗HIV的敏感度和特异度比较差异均无统计学意义,但ELISA筛查的准确度更高,特异性较好,可作为抗HIV初筛的首选方法,针对异常结果再结合其他检验方法进行诊断,以提高诊断准确率。
Objective To discuss the application of different immunity assays on the detection of human immunodeficiency virus(HIV)antibody.Methods The 72 patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome(AIDS)who were screened positive with HIV from January 2016 to December 2021 in Qingyuan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected as research subjects.The clinical data of all patinets were retrospectively analyzed.The electrochemiluminescence method and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay(ELISA)were used to detect the HIV antibody;Western blotting(WB)was used to confirm the samples with inconsistent test results,and the accuracy of electrochemiluminescence and ELISA was compared.Results①Preliminary screening:ELISA indicated 57 positive cases(with the positive rate of 79.17%)and electrochemiluminescence indicated 69 positive cases(with the positive rate of 95.83%);no significant differences were observed between two methods(P>0.05);the results of the two methods were inconsistent in 15 cases,and the coincidence rate of the preliminary screening results was 79.17%.②WB verification:3 negative cases and 12 positive cases were discovered.③The diagnosis specificity,sensitivity,positive predictive value and negative predictive value based on ELISA were 100%(12/12),95%(57/60),100%(57/57)and 80%(12/15).The diagnosis specificity,sensitivity,positive predictive value and negative predictive value based on electrochemiluminescence were 100%(2/2),95%(57/60),95%(57/60)and 0%(0/3).The diagnosis specificity and sensitivity based on ELISA and electrochemiluminescence were not significantly different(χ^(2)=0.152,0.364,P=0.452,0.298);the negative predictive value and positive predictive value based on ELISA and electrochemiluminescence were significantly different(χ^(2)=5.334,5.245,P=0.036,0.028).ELISA and WB results were quite consistent( =0.815);electrochemiluminescence and WB results were finely consistent( =0.706).Conclusions There are no significant differences among the diagnosis sensitivity and specificity based on E
作者
卢永亮
陈冬莲
王满娣
Lu Yongliang;Chen Donglian;Wang Mandi(Department of Clinical Laboratory,Qingyuan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Qingyuan 511500,Guangdong,China)
出处
《实用检验医师杂志》
2022年第1期63-66,共4页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Pathologist
关键词
电化学发光法
酶联免疫吸附试验
获得性免疫缺陷综合征
抗体
免疫
Electrochemiluminescence
Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
Antibody
Immunity
