Gonzalez-Conejero R, Rivera J, Rosillo M C, Lozano M L, García V V
Unit of Hematology and Hemotherapy, Hospital General Universitario, Murcia, Spain.
Acta Haematol. 1996;96(3):135-9. doi: 10.1159/000203744.
We have compared three techniques for the detection of plasma circulating antiplatelet antibodies, i.e., the platelet suspension immunofluorescence test (PSIFT), the platelet radioactive antiglobulin test (PRAT), and the monoclonal antibody immobilization of platelet antigens (MAIPA). Frozen plasma samples from patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura or HIV-associated thrombocytopenia were used in the study. The PSIFT and PRAT showed the appropriate ease of performance necessary for screening purposes. The PSIFT is free of radioactivity hazards, but seemed to be less sensitive than the PRAT. The MAIPA is a useful tool to detect antibodies against glycoproteins (GPs) Ib/IX and IIb/IIIa. However, in comparison to PSIFT and PRAT, MAIPA is more time consuming, requires considerable technical expertise, and the identification of antiplatelet activity is highly dependent on the selection of an appropriate primary anti-GP monoclonal antibody. This could explain the lower prevalence of antiplatelet activity detected by MAIPA, in comparison to the frequency provided by the PSIFT and PRAT.
我们比较了三种检测血浆循环抗血小板抗体的技术,即血小板悬液免疫荧光试验(PSIFT)、血小板放射性抗球蛋白试验(PRAT)和血小板抗原单克隆抗体固定试验(MAIPA)。研究使用了来自特发性血小板减少性紫癜或HIV相关血小板减少症患者的冷冻血浆样本。PSIFT和PRAT表现出筛查所需的适当操作简便性。PSIFT无放射性危害,但似乎比PRAT敏感性低。MAIPA是检测针对糖蛋白(GPs)Ib/IX和IIb/IIIa抗体的有用工具。然而,与PSIFT和PRAT相比,MAIPA更耗时,需要相当的技术专长,并且抗血小板活性的鉴定高度依赖于合适的抗GP单克隆抗体的选择。这可以解释与PSIFT和PRAT所提供的频率相比,MAIPA检测到的抗血小板活性患病率较低的原因。