论文部分内容阅读
目的 为探索一种更为简便、快速、特异、灵敏的肾综合征出血热 (HFRS)抗体的检测方法及更为有效的中西医结合治疗方法。方法 42 6例HFRS病人血清同时采用免疫滴金法 (CGIDA)与酶联免疫吸附法 (ELLISA)对比检测特异性免疫球蛋M抗体 (抗HFRS IgM)、免疫灾光法 (IFAT)对比检测特异性免疫球蛋G抗体 (抗HFRS IgG)并以 2 0例发热待查、 48例病毒性肝炎血清作对照。 10 1例HFRS病人分组进行中西药结合治疗 ,治疗组用苦黄、参麦注射液联合黄芪汤 ,对照组用利巴韦林联合甘利欣注射液。结果 42 6例HFRS病人血清 ,以CGIDA法检测抗HFRS IgG ,阳性 32 8例 ,与ELLISA法作结果评价时 ,CGIDA灵敏度 78 9% ,特异度10 0 % ;以CGIDA法检测抗HFRS IgG ,阳性 387例 ,与IFAT法作结果评价时 ,CGIDA灵敏度90 8% ,特异度 10 0 %。治疗组 5 0例与对照组 5 1例用药后退热天数、主要症状缓解天数相似 (P>0 0 5 ) ,尿蛋白消失及肾功能恢复天数 ,对照组优于治疗组 (P <0 0 5 ) ,在越期方面 ,越休克期及从发热期直接进入多尿期 ,两组情况相似 (P >0 0 5 )。结论 CGIDA法检测HFRS特异性抗体分别与ELLISA法及IFAT法对照 ,均有简便、快速、特异、灵敏之优点 ,检测抗HFRS IgM ,CGIDA法敏感性差于ELLISA法 ,但是无假阳性 ;检测抗HF
Objective To explore a more simple, rapid, specific and sensitive detection of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) antibodies and more effective treatment of Integrative Medicine. Methods 42 cases of HFRS patients were tested for the specific immunoglobulin M (anti-HFRS IgM) by immunodiffusion (CGIDA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELLISA) Immunoglobulin G antibody (anti-HFRS IgG) and to 20 cases of fever to be checked, 48 cases of viral hepatitis serum as a control. A total of 101 HFRS patients were treated with combination of TCM and western medicine. The treatment group was treated with Kuhuang and Shenmai injection combined with Astragalus soup, and the control group with ribavirin and Glycyrrhizin injection. Results 426 cases of HFRS patients were detected by CGIDA method. The positive rate of anti-HFRS IgG was 32 8 cases. When evaluated by ELLISA, the sensitivity and specificity of CGIDA were 78.9% and 100% respectively. The detection of anti-HFRS IgG by CGIDA was positive 387 cases, with the IFAT method for the evaluation of the results, CGIDA 90 8% sensitivity and specificity of 100%. The number of days of fever relief, the number of days of main symptoms relieved (P> 0.05), the disappearance of urinary protein and the number of recovery days of renal function in the treatment group and the control group were better than those in the control group (P <0.05 ), In the overdue period, the more shock period and directly into the polyuria period from fever, the two groups were similar (P> 0 05). Conclusions CGIDA method can detect HFRS specific antibody with ELLISA method and IFAT method respectively. The detection of anti-HFRS IgM and CGIDA is less sensitive than that of ELLISA, but there is no false positive.