【摘要】 目的　比较斑点免疫金胶体渗滤法 (DIGFA)和间接免疫荧光法 (IIF)检测抗ds DNA抗体。方法　采集内科门诊和住院患者血标本 2 10 0份 ,其中同期住院的系统性红斑狼疮 (SLE) 118例 15 5份标本、类风湿关节炎 (RA) 4 4例 44份标本。同时检测ANA(IIF法 )、抗ds DNA抗体 (IIF法和DIGFA法 )。结果　 2 10 0份标本、住院SLE和RA患者DIGFA法检测抗ds DNA抗体的检出率均显著高于IIF法 ,分别为 9 86 %对 4 71%、5 4 2 4%对 35 5 9%和 2 2 7%对0 %。两种方法的符合率分别为 94 95 %、77 97%和97 73 %。以IIF为金标准 ,DIGFA检测抗ds DNA抗体的敏感性和特异性分别为 91 92 %和 94 2 0 %。在 2 10 0份检测及住院SLE患者分别有 16 36 %和 2 5 92 %在IIF法抗体转阴时 ,DIGFA法抗ds DNA抗体仍呈阳性。结论　DIGFA法检测抗ds DNA抗体简便、快速、结果直观 ,检出率高于IIF法 ,有助于SLE的回顾性诊断 ,可以替代IIF法或对IIF法补充更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the effects of dot immunogold label filtration assay(DIGFA) and indirect immune fluorescent assay(IIF) in detecting the anti-dsDNA antibody Methods Serum samples of 2 100 from outpatients and inpatients including 155 samples from 118 SLE inpatients and 44 samples from 44 RA inpatients were tested for ANA with IIF and anti-dsDNA antibody with IIF and DIGFA Results\ The positive rates of anti-dsDNA antibody with DIGFA and IIF in 2 100 samples, SLE and RA inpatients were 986% vs 471%, 5424% vs 3559% and 227% vs 0% respectively The positive rates of anti-dsDNA antibody with DIGFA in 3 groups were higher than those with IIF The coincidence of two methods in 2 100 samples, SLE and RA inpatients was 9495%, 7797% and 9773% respectively Compared to IIF, the sensitivity and specificity of DIGFA were 9192% and 9420% in 2 100 samples Anti-dsDNA antibody with DIGFA was still positive in 1636% of 2 100 samples and 2592% SLE inpatients when it became to the negative with IIF Conclusion\ DIGFA used in the detection of anti-dsDNA antibody is faster and more sensitive than IIF and it dose not require any large equipment The positive of anti-dsDNA antibody using DIGFA will contribute to the retrospective diagnosis of SLE IIF can be replaced and supplemented by DIGFA.更多还原