荟萃分析:中国男男性行为者中艾滋病毒感染和梅毒的患病率
Meta-analysis: prevalence of HIV infection and syphilis among MSM in China.
作者信息
Gao L, Zhang L, Jin Q
机构信息
Institute of Pathogen Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking UnionMedical College, Beijing, PR China.
出版信息
Sex Transm Infect. 2009 Sep;85(5):354-8. doi: 10.1136/sti.2008.034702. Epub 2009 Apr 6.
OBJECTIVES
The prevalence of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is rapidly rising among men who have sex with men (MSM) in China. The aim is to systematically review the published studies and summarise the estimates of HIV prevalence among MSM in China.
METHODS
Published articles, both in English and in Chinese, on HIV prevalence among MSM in China until 15 September 2008 were systematically reviewed. Meta-analysis was used to quantitatively summarise the estimates, and the prevalence of syphilis presented in the included studies was also analysed.
RESULTS
Twenty-six eligible studies, published during 2001-2008, were included in this review. Their results were frequently heterogeneous. The meta-analyses showed that MSM form a high-risk population for HIV infection in China with a summary prevalence of 2.5% (95% CI 0.9% to 3.3%). A much higher prevalence of syphilis (9.1%) may indicate a potential of more severe HIV epidemic in the future because of their common high-risk behaviours.
CONCLUSIONS
MSM are a high-risk population for HIV infection in China. An effective strategy for prevention and control is required for this specific population. Differences between sampling methods, sample sizes and study locations may explain some of the inconsistencies found in the included studies.
目的
在中国,男男性行为者(MSM)中艾滋病毒/艾滋病及其他性传播疾病的患病率正在迅速上升。目的是系统回顾已发表的研究,并总结中国男男性行为者中艾滋病毒患病率的估计值。
方法
系统回顾了截至2008年9月15日发表的关于中国男男性行为者艾滋病毒患病率的中英文文章。采用荟萃分析对估计值进行定量总结,并分析纳入研究中梅毒的患病率。
结果
本综述纳入了2001年至2008年期间发表的26项符合条件的研究。它们的结果常常存在异质性。荟萃分析表明,在中国,男男性行为者是艾滋病毒感染的高危人群,汇总患病率为2.5%(95%可信区间为0.9%至3.3%)。梅毒患病率(9.1%)高得多,这可能表明由于他们常见的高危行为,未来艾滋病毒流行可能更严重。
结论
在中国,男男性行为者是艾滋病毒感染的高危人群。需要针对这一特定人群制定有效的预防和控制策略。抽样方法、样本量和研究地点的差异可能解释了纳入研究中发现的一些不一致之处。