Suppr超能文献

诊断系统性红斑狼疮:新一代免疫测定法用于检测抗 dsDNA 抗体是替代 Farr 技术和克氏锥虫免疫荧光试验的有效方法。

Diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus: new-generation immunoassays for measurement of anti-dsDNA antibodies are an effective alternative to the Farr technique and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test.

机构信息

Clinical Pathology Unit, Civic Hospital, Cittadella, Italy.

出版信息

Lupus. 2010 Jul;19(8):906-12. doi: 10.1177/0961203310362995. Epub 2010 Feb 23.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four new enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-double-stranded-DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, in comparison with the Farr assay and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). To this purpose, sera from four patient groups were collected: 52 sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); 28 from patients with other connective tissue diseases (CTD); 36 from patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; and 24 from those with acute viral infection. All sera were tested for anti-dsDNA antibodies by four EIA methods using a different antigenic DNA source [synthetic oligonucleotide (Method A), circular plasmid (Method B), recombinant (Method C), and purified extracted (Method D)], and by CLIFT and Farr assays. The diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was as follows: 84.6% (Method A), 73% (B), 82.7% (C), 84.6% (D), 55.8% (CLIFT), and 78.8% (Farr). Specificity was 82.9% (A), 97.7% (B), 96.5% (C), 94.3% (D), 96.5% (CLIFT), and 90.9% (Farr). From these data, we can conclude that the new-generation EIA methods evaluated in this study have higher sensitivity than the CLIFT and Farr assays and, with the exception of Method A, have specificity similar to the CLIFT and slightly higher than the Farr assay. These findings suggest that EIA tests may replace CLIFT as a screening test and the Farr assay as a specific test, for anti-dsDNA antibody detection.

摘要

本研究旨在评估四种新的酶免疫分析法(EIA)在抗双链 DNA(抗 dsDNA)抗体检测方面的诊断性能,并与 Farr 检测法和克鲁维利利什曼原虫免疫荧光检测(CLIFT)进行比较。为此,收集了四个患者组的血清:52 份系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)患者血清;28 份其他结缔组织疾病(CTD)患者血清;36 份丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)感染患者血清;24 份急性病毒感染患者血清。所有血清均采用四种不同抗原 DNA 来源的 EIA 方法(合成寡核苷酸[方法 A]、环形质粒[方法 B]、重组[方法 C]和纯化提取[方法 D])以及 CLIFT 和 Farr 检测法进行抗 dsDNA 抗体检测。检测方法的诊断敏感性如下:84.6%(方法 A)、73%(B)、82.7%(C)、84.6%(D)、55.8%(CLIFT)和 78.8%(Farr)。特异性分别为 82.9%(A)、97.7%(B)、96.5%(C)、94.3%(D)、96.5%(CLIFT)和 90.9%(Farr)。根据这些数据,我们可以得出结论,本研究中评估的新一代 EIA 方法具有比 CLIFT 和 Farr 检测法更高的敏感性,除方法 A 外,特异性与 CLIFT 相似,略高于 Farr 检测法。这些发现表明,EIA 检测法可能替代 CLIFT 作为筛查检测法,以及 Farr 检测法作为特异性检测法,用于抗 dsDNA 抗体检测。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验