CMIA法和FPIA法监测全血环孢霉素A浓度的比较  

Comparative study of CMIA and FPIA for monitoring the whole blood CsA concentration

作　　者：付鹏[1] 李月霞[1] 张弋[1] 

机构地区：[1]天津市第一中心医院,天津300192

出　　处：《中国医院药学杂志》2012年第9期707-709,共3页Chinese Journal of Hospital Pharmacy

摘　　要：目的:比较荧光偏振免疫法(FPIA)和化学发光微粒子免疫法(CMIA)监测全血环孢霉素A(CsA)浓度结果的相关性。方法:收集服用CsA患者的稳态浓度全血样本,分别用FPIA法和CMIA法进行测定,考察2种方法的相关程度;进一步将浓度结果分为低浓度组和高浓度组进行相关性研究。结果:2种方法测定全血CsA浓度结果r=0.992具有显著性差异(P<0.05),CMIA法测定结果偏低。低浓度组结果r=0.961具有显著性差异(P<0.05);高浓度组结果r=0.992亦具有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:CMIA法作为新的全血CsA浓度监测方法,测定结果比FPIA法要显著降低,但监测数据更为准确,需要向医师和患者说明。OBJECTIVE To compare the CsA blood concentration correlation of fluorescence polarization immunoassay （FPIA） and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay （CMIA）. METHODS The steady-state concentrations of whole blood samples were determined in patients treated with CsA though FPIA and CMIA, and the relevance of the two methods was investigated The monitoring data were divided into low-concentration group and high-concentration group. RESULTS The results of two methods had significant differences, but there was a good correlation （r= 0. 992） between the two methods. The re-sults of CMIA determination was usually lower than FPIA. Low-concentration group results had significant difference, a not had correlation （r= 0.961） ; high concentration group results also had significant differences, a good correlation （r = 0. 992）. CONCLUSION As a new method of monitoring CsA concentration, the results of CMIA were significantly lower than FPIA, but the results were more accurate. We need to explain to physicians and patients.

关 键 词：荧光偏振免疫法 化学发光微粒子免疫法 环孢霉素A 

分 类 号：R927.2[医药卫生—药学]