Lantin J P, Peitrequin R, Frei P C
Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1987;82(3-4):487-9. doi: 10.1159/000234262.
1,834 serum samples from high-risk subjects were tested for anti-HTLV-III/LAV antibody by using the enzyme immuno assay (EIA) of Abbott (A), or the EIA of Abbott and Pasteur (P), or those two EIA plus Western blot analysis (WB). 983 samples were negative in A, 766 were strongly positive when tested in duplicate with both A and P, and 85 were slightly positive in A (23 samples) or discordant (62 samples) when tested further in P and WB. Of 62 discordant samples, 38 were reproducible. The pattern A+P-WB- was by far the most frequently encountered (26 samples) and interpreted as reflecting the higher incidence of positive results in the assay A. If one assumes that WB results are correct, the specificities of A and P are 93 and 100%, respectively (p less than 0.01), whereas the sensitivities are similar (98 and 99%).
采用雅培公司的酶免疫测定法（A法）、雅培与巴斯德公司的酶免疫测定法（P法）或这两种酶免疫测定法结合免疫印迹分析（WB法），对1834份高危人群的血清样本进行抗HTLV - III/LAV抗体检测。983份样本A法检测为阴性，766份样本用A法和P法重复检测时呈强阳性，85份样本A法检测呈弱阳性（23份样本）或在P法和WB法进一步检测时结果不一致（62份样本）。在62份结果不一致的样本中，38份可重复。A + P - WB - 模式是最常见的（26份样本），被解释为反映了A法检测阳性结果的发生率较高。如果假设WB结果是正确的，A法和P法的特异性分别为93%和100%（p小于0.01），而敏感性相似（98%和99%）。
