摘要
目的 比较4种试剂盒检测SARS患者血清中抗-SARS-CoV IgG的灵敏度和特异度。方法 用2种酶联免疫吸附试验(EIA)和2种间接免疫荧光法(IFA)试剂盒分别检测18例SARS患者的99份系列血清及123份阴性参比血清标本中抗-SARS-CoV IgG。结果 在患者发病第1周,4种试剂盒均未检出抗-SARS-CoV IgG;自发病第2周,除EIA甲未能检出外,EIA乙和2种IFA均从血清中检出抗-SARS-CoV IgG,其阳性率分别为57.1％(4/7)、57.1％(4/7)和42.9％(3/7)。4种试剂盒最早检出时间分别为发病后第16、12、13和9天。于发病后第3周该4种试剂盒的检出率分别为52.6％(10/19)、94.7％(18/19)、78.9％(15/19)和84.2％(16/19)。但自发病第4周后,该4种试剂盒的检出率相同。检测123份阴性参比血清表明,除EIA乙的特异度为94.9％外,其余3种试剂盒的特异度均为100％。结论 2种IFA的灵敏度和特异度均较2种EIA高;2种国产EIA试剂盒质量尚需进一步提高。
Objective To compare the senstivity and specificity of four kits for detection of anti-
severe acute respiratory syndrome(SARS)-CoV IgG in sera of SARS patients. Methods Anti-SARS-CoV
IgG was detected in 99 serial sera from 18 SARS patients and in 123 negative reference sera, using two
enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (EIA No. A and No. B) and two indirect immunofluoresecence assays
(Australian IFA and Euroimmun IFA). Results Anti-SARS-CoV IgG was not detected in sera collected
from SARS patients at the first week after onset by any of the four kits, however, it was detectable in sera
obtained at the second week of illness by EIA No. B, and two IFA, but not by ELA No. A, with the
positive rates of 57. 1% (4/7), 57. 1% (4/7) and 42. 9% (3/7), respectively. The anti-SARS-CoV IgG was
first determined in sera on the 9th day by Euroimmun IFA, 12th day by EIA No. B, 13th day by
Australian IFA, and 16th day by EIA No. A. The positive rates of antiboody on the 3rd week after onset
were 84. 2% (16/19), 94. 7% (18/19), 78. 9% (15/19) ana 52. 6% (10/19) respectively. They were
identical since the 4th week after the disease onset. Through detection of 123 negative reference sera, the
specificity of EIA No. A and two IFA was 100%, with exception of 94. 9% for EIA No. B. Conclusion
The sensitivity and specficity of the two IFAs were relatively higher than that of the two EIAs. The
quality of the two homemade EIAs should be improved.
出处
《中华流行病学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2004年第6期514-516,共3页
Chinese Journal of Epidemiology
