比较不同免疫测定法检测针对内因子和壁细胞的抗体。

Comparison of different immunoassays for the detection of antibodies against Intrinsic Factor and Parietal Cells.

机构信息

Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.

出版信息

J Immunol Methods. 2020 Dec;487:112867. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2020.112867. Epub 2020 Sep 15.

DOI:10.1016/j.jim.2020.112867

PMID:32941886

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In the diagnostic work up of autoimmune gastritis several immunological methods are available for the detection of antibodies against Intrinsic Factor (IF) and Parietal Cells (PC). However, there are no recent reports directly comparing all the available assays and methods. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of several commercially available anti-IF and anti-PC antibody assays from different manufacturers in a multi-center multi-cohort setting.

METHODS

Sera were used from 5 different cohorts consisting of samples from 25 healthy elderly, 20 HCV or HIV positive patients and 150 patients positive for anti-IF or anti-PC antibodies or in whom these antibodies were requested. These cohorts were tested for anti-IF antibodies with 6 different assays (IIF, ELISA, DIA and EliA) and for anti-PC antibodies with 7 different assays (IIF, ELISA, DIA and EliA). Performance was evaluated by calculating the concordance and relative sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Good concordance was found between the assays for both antibody specificities, ranging from 81 to 100% and 91-100% for anti-IF and anti-PC antibodies, respectively. Highest relative sensitivity was found with the (automated) ELISA based methods. However, all assays had a relative sensitivity between 85 and 100% for anti-IF antibodies and between 95 and 100% for anti-PC antibodies. The relative specificity ranged between 76 and 100% for anti-IF antibodies and between 96 and 100% for anti-PC antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that most assays perform well and are concordant to each other, despite the methodological differences and the different sources of antigen used. However, the method used affects the sensitivity and specificity. The (automated) ELISA based assays have the highest relative sensitivity and relative specificity. Care should be taken in the interpretation of positive results by IIF and negative results by the Blue Diver when testing for anti-IF antibodies.

摘要

目的

在自身免疫性胃炎的诊断工作中，有几种免疫学方法可用于检测针对内因子（IF）和壁细胞（PC）的抗体。然而，目前尚无直接比较所有可用检测方法的最新报道。本研究的目的是在多中心多队列环境中比较来自不同制造商的几种市售抗 IF 和抗 PC 抗体检测方法的性能。

方法

使用来自 5 个不同队列的血清，这些队列包括 25 名健康老年人、20 名 HCV 或 HIV 阳性患者以及 150 名抗 IF 或抗 PC 抗体阳性或要求检测这些抗体的患者。这些队列使用 6 种不同的检测方法（间接免疫荧光法、酶联免疫吸附试验、DIA 和 EliA）检测抗 IF 抗体，使用 7 种不同的检测方法（间接免疫荧光法、酶联免疫吸附试验、DIA 和 EliA）检测抗 PC 抗体。通过计算一致性和相对敏感性和特异性来评估性能。

结果

两种抗体特异性的检测方法之间具有良好的一致性，分别为 81-100%和 91-100%。（自动化）ELISA 基于方法的检测方法具有最高的相对敏感性。然而，所有检测方法的抗 IF 抗体的相对敏感性均在 85-100%之间，抗 PC 抗体的相对敏感性均在 95-100%之间。相对特异性在抗 IF 抗体之间为 76-100%，在抗 PC 抗体之间为 96-100%。