两种血清循环免疫复合物测定方法的比较  

Comparison of polyethylene glycol precipitation and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of circulating immune complexes

作　　者：许文清[1] 江伟梅[1] 欧启水[1] 

机构地区：[1]福建医科大学附属第一医院检验科,福州350005

出　　处：《临床输血与检验》2004年第2期101-103,共3页Journal of Clinical Transfusion and Laboratory Medicine

摘　　要：目的　对测定血清循环免疫复合物 ( circulating immune complexes,CIC)的两种方法 ( PEG沉淀法及 CIC-C1 q ELISA法 )进行评价 ,进一步探讨 CIC测定的临床意义。方法　采用 PEG沉淀法和 CIC-C1 q ELISA法检测肾脏损害、系统性红斑狼疮 ( SLE)、类风湿性关节炎 ( RA)等 86例患者的血清 CIC。结果　 86例患者中 PEG沉淀法检测阳性 1 7例 ( 1 9.77% ) ,CIC-C1 q ELISA法检测阳性 3 8例 ( 4 4.1 9% ) ,差异有显著性 ( P<0 .0 5 )。CIC-C1 q ELISA法检测 SLE、RA和肾脏损害患者的 CIC阳性率分别为 1 1 /1 5、5 /8和 2 0 /61 ( 3 2 .79% )。结论　与 PEG沉淀法相比 ,CIC-C1 q ELISA法较敏感 ,适宜于临床推广应用。CIC的阳性与 SLE、RA和肾脏损害有关。Objective To appraise the two methods[polyethylene glycol(PEG) precipitation assay and CIC-C1q ELISA assay] which were used to detect the circulating immune complexes(CIC) and the clinical significance of CIC. Methods PEG precipitation assay and CIC-C1q ELISA assay were used to detect the levels of CIC in 86 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or kidney injury. Results The positive rates of CIC detect- edbyPEGprecipitationassayandCIC-C1qELISAassaywere19.77%and44.19%,thedifferencewassignificant(P< 0.005). The positive rates of CIC detected by CIC-C1q ELISA assay were 11/15, 5/8 and 32.79% respectively in patients with SLE, RA and kidney injury. Conclusions Compared with PEG precipitation assay, CIC-C1q ELISA assay is more sensitive, and can be used in clinical practice for detection of the CIC in different diseases. The positivity of CIC is related to SLE, RA and kidney injury.

关 键 词：血清 循环免疫复合物 测定方法 比较 酶联免疫吸附试验 聚乙二醇 PEG沉淀法 

分 类 号：R446.62[医药卫生—诊断学] R446.11[医药卫生—临床医学]