免疫印迹法、酶联免疫法及放射免疫法对胰岛自身抗体检测的比较

目的：评价免疫印迹法检测胰岛自身抗体（GAD-A、ICA、IAA）与酶联免疫法测ICA、GADA放射免疫法测IAA结果的一致性。方法：采用免疫印迹法测定81例糖尿病患者胰岛自身抗体，将结果与酶联免疫法测定的GAD-A、ICA，放射免疫法测定IAA结果进行比较。结果：免疫印迹法阳性检出率为：GAIN-A51．8％，ICA18．5％，IAA27．1％；酶联免疫法（GAD-A、ICA）、放射免疫法（IAA）阳性检出率：GAD-A32．1％，ICA34．5％，IAA30．8％；上述两组结果进行比较，两组相比ICA和GAD-A有统计学差异（P〈0．05），IAA无统计学差异。两组结果一致率比较：GAD-A50．6％，ICA64．2％，IAA69．1％。结论：与临床常用酶联免疫法检测GAD-A、ICA，放射免疫法检测IAA比较，免疫印迹法和酶联免疫法在ICA及GAD-A阳性检出率上的差异有显著性，和放射免疫法在IAA阳性检出率上差异无显著性。

Comparison between Assay of lmmunoblotting Test,ELISA and RIA in Detection for Islet Autoantibodies

Objective：To estimate the concordance of assay of immunoblotting test, ELISA, and radioimmunoassay （RIA） in detection for islet autoantibodies： glutamic acid decarboxylase antibody （GAD-A）,islet cell antibody （ICA） and insulin autoantibody （IAA）. Methods： Eighty-one sera of patients with diabetes mellitus were measured for GAD-A and ICA with ELISA assay while IAA with RIA, and all samples were detected for GAD-A, ICA and IAA with immunoblotting test. Results： The positive rates of GAD-A, ICA, IAA were 32. 1%, 34.5%, 30.8% with traditional assays respectively, and 51.8%, 18.5%, 27. 1% with immunoblotting test. The positive rate of IAA dectected with RIA was not significantly different from assay of immunoblotting test （P〉0.05）, but the rate of ICA was significantly higher and of GAD-A was significantly lower with ELISA than immunoblotting test （P〈 0.05）. The concordance rates were 50.6% （GAD-A）, 64.2% （ICA）, 69. 1% （IAA）, respectively. Conclusion： There is significantly difference between positive rates of GAD-A and ICA detection with immunoblotting test and ELISA, but no significantly difference between positive rate of IAA detection with immunoblotting test and RIA.