抗中性粒细胞胞浆抗体两种检测方法比较.docVIP

抗中性粒细胞胞浆抗体两种检测方法比较【摘要】 目的 比较线性免疫分析法(LIA)与间接免疫荧光法(IIF)检测抗中性粒细胞胞浆抗体(ANCA)的性能,评价两种方法在ANCA检测中的应用效果。方法 用LIA法和IIF法对92份自身免疫性疾病患者血清和160份健康献血者血清进行检测,用χ2检验,对两种方法结果进行比较分析。结果 LIA法阳性率为6.4%(16/252),其中PR3阳性率为2.4%(6/252),MPO阳性率为4.0%(10/252);IIF法阳性率为8.7%(22/252),其中C-ANCA阳性率为3.5%(9/252),P-ANCA阳性率为5.2%(13/252)。在经确证为血管炎的19例标本中,LIA法检出阳性16例,假阴性3例,敏感性为84.2%(16/19),准确性为100%(16/16); IIF法检出阳性23例,假阳性4例,敏感性为94.7%(18/19),准确性为81.8%(19/23)。两种方法的敏感性和准确性比较均有显著性差异(P0.05);但IIF法相对敏感,LIA法有较高的准确性,两者联合检测可提高ANCA的检出质量。 【关键词】 抗中性粒细胞胞浆抗体; 线性免疫分析法; 间接免疫荧光法 The study on detecting anti-neutrophil cytetoplasmic anti-autoantibody(ANCA) KE Zong-ming.The people’s hospital of yun xian in Hubei,Yunxian 442500,China 【Abstract】 Objective To compare the properties of Line Immunoassay(LIA) with Indirect Immunofluorescent(IIF) in detecting anti-neutrophil cytetoplasmic anti-autoantibody(ANCA) and evaluate their effectiveness.Methods Serum samples of 92 patients with autoimmune diseases and 160 healthyblood donors were detected with LIA and IIF separately,then compare those testing results.Results LIA method showed that positive rate was 6.4%(16/252),in which PR3-positive rate was 2.4%(6/252),MPO-positive rate was 4.0%(10/252); and IIF method showed that positive rate was 8.7%(22/252),where C-ANCA positive rate was 3.5%(9/252),P-ANCA positive rate was 5.2%(13/252).After the confirmation of 19 specimens,LIA method detected to show that 16 cases were positive and3 cases were negative,the sensitivity was 84.2%(16/19),accuracy was 100%(16/16); IIF method reviewed that the 23 cases positive,false positive in 4 cases,the sensitivity was 94.7%(18/19),accuracy was 81.8%(19/23).The sensitivity and accuracy of the two methods had a significant difference (P0.05),while IIF method is relatively sensitive,LIA method has high specificity.Combination of the two detection methods can improve the quality of detection of ANCA. 【Key words】Antineutropil cytoplasmic antibodies(ANCA);Line Immunoassay;Indirect Immunofluorescent