摘要
目的探讨化学发光法（CLIA）和免疫印迹法（IB）检测血清中胰岛细胞抗体（ICA）、谷氨酸脱羧酶抗体（GAD）以及胰岛素自身抗体（IAA）的敏感性和特异性。方法用CLIA法和IB法分别检测17例1型糖尿病（T1DM）、60例2型糖尿病（T2DM）患者和60例健康对照者血清中的ICA、GADA和IAA，观察其敏感性和特异性；采用统计学处理分析评价两种方法测定糖尿病自身抗体的敏感性和特异性。结果CLIA法检测TIDM患者血清中ICA、GADA、IAA阳性率分别为52．94、64．71、29．41，IB法检测T1DM患者阳性率分别为41．18、47．06、11.76；CLIA法检测T2DM患者血清中ICA、GADA、IAA的阳性率分别为13．33、15．OO、11．67，IB法检测T2DM患者阳性率分剐为6．67、6．67、5．00；CLIA法检测50例健康对照组ICA、GADA、IAA的阳性率分别为0．00％、3．33％、3．33％。IB法检测健康对照组阳性率分别为0．00％、1．67％、1．67％。结论在GAD、IAA检测上化学发光法敏感度明显高于免疫印迹法，而在ICA项目上未发现明显的统计学差异；在特异性的检测上，虽然化学发光法在GAD和IAA的阳性率上高于免疫印迹法，但差异无统计学意义。
Objective To compare the detection methods for autoantibody in diabetes mellitus （DM）. Methods Islet cell autoantibody（ICA）, glutamic acid deearboxylase antibody（GAD） and insulin autoantibody（IAA） were detected by chemiluminescence immunoassay（CLIA） and immunoblotting （IB）, and the sensitivity and specificity to diabetes were compared between the two methods. Results The positive rates of ICA, GAD and IAA detected by CLIA were respectively 52.94%, 64.71% and 29.41%/00 in type 1 DM （T1DM） and those detected by IB were respectively 41.18%, 47.06% and 11.76%. In normal group, the positive rates of ICA, GAD and IAA detected by CLIA wre respectively 0.00%, 3.33% and 3.33%, those detected by IB were respectively 0.00%, 1.67% and 1. 67%. Conclusion The sensitivity of CLIA might be higher than IB in GAD and IAA detection, but there mitht be no difference for ICA detection. About specificity, there might yet no difference between CLIA and IB.
出处
《检验医学与临床》
CAS
2013年第A01期35-37,共3页
Laboratory Medicine and Clinic
关键词
化学发光
免疫印迹
细岛细胞自身抗体
谷氨酸脱羧酶抗体
胰岛素自身抗体
chemiluminescence immunoassay
immunoblotting
islet cell autoantibody
glutamic acid dcarboxylase antibody
insulin autoantibody
