ELISA法和免疫印迹法检测抗ENA抗体的比较

目的：将目前国内新开展的两种检测ＥＮＡ技术，即免疫印迹法（ＩＢＴ）和酶免疫法（ＥＬＩＳＡ）进行对比、分析。方法：用 ＩＢＴ法及 ＥＬＩＳＡ法同时检测 １３０例各种结缔组织病、非结缔组织病人及健康人血清中的抗ＥＮＡ抗体。结果：２０例健康人，两法均为阴性；８０例结缔组织病患者，两法检出抗 Ｓｍ抗体的符合率为 ９１．３％，检测抗 ＲＮＰ抗体的符合率为 ８２．５％，以上抗体两法的敏感性无显著差异（Ｐ＞０．０５）。检测抗ＳＳＡ抗体，ＩＢＴ法检出率低。抗ＳＳＢ抗体检出率两法亦无显著差异（Ｐ＞０．０５），符合率为８７．５０％，在１２例ＳＳ的检测中符合率比较低，为５０％。结论：两种方法在检测抗Ｓｍ、ＲＮＰ、ＳＳＢ抗体时，敏感性无显著差异，ＥＬＩＳＡ法检测抗ＳＳＡ抗体优于ＩＢＴ法。上述两种方法在临床应用于抗ＥＮＡ抗体的检测中于可互相验证和补充。

The Comparison Between Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Immunoblot Test (IBT) Method in the Detection of Anti-ENA Antibodies

Objective:To clarify and compare the sensitivity and specificity of two methods with each other that are used for the detection of anti-ENA antibodies in routine laboratory work. Methods: Totally 130 serum samples, of which 80 from patients with different connective tissue diseases (CTD),30 from that with non-CTD diseases, and 20 from healthy volunteers, were collected and examined. All sera were tested for anti-Sm, anti-RNP, anti-SSA and anti-SSB antibodies by the methods of enzyem-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immunoblot test (IBT). Results: the 20 samples of sera from healthy volunteers showed negative, and the coincidence rate of the two method in detecting anti-Sm antibody was 58.82%, whereas that in detecting anti-RNP antibody was 61.11%, with no statistically significant difference between the two rates (P > 0.05 ). While IBT method was used to detect anti-SSA antibody, the detectable rate was. low, and the reason for this was probably the application of rabbit thymus acetone powder as antigen, which led to the loss of some SSA antigen constituents. The detectable rates of anti-SSB antibody in groups of the two methods showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05 ), but the coincidence rate was as low as 37.5% , and that in detecting serum samples from 12 cases of Sjogrens syndrome was 50 %. Conclusion:The sensitivities of the two methods in detecting autiSm, anti-RNP and anti-SSB antibodies were with no statistically significant difference, and that of ELISA method in detecting anti-SSA antibody was higher than that of IBT method. The above two methods in clinical detection of anti-ENA antibodies could be identified and replenished with each other.