胶体金法与颗粒凝集试验在梅毒螺旋体抗体、甲苯胺红抗体检测对比分析

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的对比分析胶体金法与颗粒凝集试验在梅毒螺旋抗体、甲苯胺红抗体检测中的效能差异。方法选择2019年1月—2022年1月因疑似梅毒在武警贵州总队医院接受检查的100例患者为研究对象,以血液、脑脊液VDRL及FTA-ABS检验均阳性为金标准阳性,采用盲法审定胶体金法、颗粒凝集试验以及甲苯胺红检测对梅毒螺旋体抗体的检测效能,并进行组间比较。结果以患者血液、脑脊液VDRL及FTA-ABS检验均阳性为金标准阳性,100例疑似梅毒患者中83例为阳性,17例为阴性;胶体金法检测阳性者81例,阴性19例;颗粒凝集试验检测阳性83例,阴性17例;甲苯胺红阳性53例,阴性47例。胶体金法诊断准确率94.00%,灵敏度95.18%,特异度88.24%,漏诊率4.82%,误诊率11.76%;颗粒凝集试验诊断准确率94.00%,灵敏度96.39%,特异度82.35%,漏诊率3.61%,误诊率17.65%;甲苯胺红诊断准确率56.00%,灵敏度55.42%,特异度58.82%,漏诊率44.58%,误诊率41.18%。分别绘制胶体金法、颗粒凝集试验以及甲苯胺红检测对梅毒螺旋体抗体诊断ROC曲线,计算其AUC分别为0.907（P<0.001）、0.894（P<0.001）和0.571（P=0.356）。结论胶体金法、颗粒凝集试验以及甲苯胺红检测对梅毒螺旋体抗体都具有一定的诊断效能,但胶体金法和颗粒凝集试验的诊断准确率、灵敏度、特异度均优于甲苯胺红检测,可以考虑将其应用于临床中梅毒患者的鉴别诊断中。

关键词: 胶体金法, 颗粒凝集试验, 甲苯胺红检验, 梅毒螺旋体抗体, 诊断效能

Abstract: Objective To compare and analyze the difference between colloidal gold method and particle agglutination test in the detection of Treponema pallidum antibody and toluidine red antibody. Methods A total of 100 patients who were examined in Guizhou Armed Police Corps Hospital due to suspected syphilis from January 2019 to January 2022 were selected as the study objects. The gold standard positive was that the blood, cerebrospinal fluid VDRL and FTA ABS were all positive. The detection efficiency of colloidal gold method, particle agglutination test and toluidine red test for Treponema pallidum antibody was examined by blind method and compared between groups. Results The positive results of VDRL and FTA ABS in blood and cerebrospinal fluid of patients were regarded as gold standard positive. Among 100 suspected syphilis patients, 83 were positive, 17 were negative; 81 were positive by colloidal gold method; 19 were negative, 83 were positive by particle agglutination test; 17 were negative, 53 were positive by toluidine red, 47 were negative. The diagnostic accuracy of colloidal gold method was 94.00%, sensitivity was 95.18%, specificity was 88.24%, missed diagnosis rate was 4.82%, misdiagnosis rate was 11.76%; diagnostic accuracy of particle agglutination test was 94.00%; sensitivity was 96.39%, specificity was 82.35%, missed diagnosis rate was 3.61%, misdiagnosis rate was 17.65%; diagnostic accuracy of toluidine red was 56.00%, sensitivity was 55.42%, specificity was 58.82%, missed diagnosis rate was 44.58%, misdiagnosis rate was 41.18%. The ROC curves of colloidal gold method, particle agglutination test and toluidine red test for the diagnosis of Treponema pallidum antibody were drawn respectively, and the AUC was 0.907 (P<0.001), 0.894 (P<0.001) and 0.571 (P=0.356). Conclusion The colloidal gold method, particle agglutination test and toluidine red test have certain diagnostic efficacy for Treponema pallidum antibody, but the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the colloidal gold method and particle agglutination test are higher than those of the toluidine red test, which can be considered for the differential diagnosis of syphilis patients in clinical practice.

Key words: colloidal gold method, particle agglutination test, toluidine red test, treponema pallidum antibody, diagnostic performance

中图分类号:

R446.622

王芳媛. 胶体金法与颗粒凝集试验在梅毒螺旋体抗体、甲苯胺红抗体检测对比分析[J]. 中华养生保健, 2023, 41(8): 19-22.

参考文献

[1] 钟霞,潘建华,童坚.海南某院孕妇HBV、HCV和梅毒螺旋体检测结果分析[J].传染病信息,2021,34(2):160-161.
[2] 张兴旺,何莉莉,高霞,等.免疫印迹法检测梅毒螺旋体IgM抗体对胎传梅毒诊断的价值[J].检验医学,2019,34(1):84-85.
[3] CHACKO C W, GOPALAN K N.Sampling of Blood From Finger Puncture in Blotting Paper Discs (Rondelles) For Fluorescent Treponemal Antibody (F. T. A.) Tests For Treponematoses[J]. Indian J Dermatol Venereol, 1970,36(4):135-142.
[4] XIA C S, YUE Z H, WANG H.Evaluation of three automated Treponema pallidum antibody assays for syphilis screening[J]. J Infect Chemother, 2018,24(11):887-891.
[5] 赵静,卞成蓉,李伯安,等.梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体检测灰区范围分析[J].中国医药导报,2019,16(16):151-154.
[6] 毕超,梁景耀,梁艳华,等.梅毒螺旋体明胶凝集试验定量检测在神经梅毒诊疗中的临床意义[J].中国艾滋病性病,2019,25(8):845-847.
[7] 王欣俞,赵晋文,丁晓娜,等.梅毒螺旋体、心磷脂IgG抗体检测在梅毒诊断中的应用分析[J].检验医学与临床,2019,16(15):2123-2126.
[8] 许根友. 学习《全国临床检验操作规程》(第3版)第一篇对检验工作的实际意义[J].临床血液学杂志,2010,23(12):759-760.
[9] 李永涛,李坤苓,丁艳梅,等.磁微粒化学发光法检测梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体在临床筛查中的应用[J].中国卫生检验杂志,2019,29(5):577-579.
[10] 蒲癸宏,李美析,龚睿,等.尿素解离法纠正化学发光法检测梅毒螺旋体抗体假阳性结果的效能评价[J].中华实用诊断与治疗杂志,2022,36(7):736-739.
[11] 张瑾,陈绍椿,尹跃平.梅毒螺旋体核酸扩增检测技术及基因分型方法研究进展[J].中国艾滋病性病,2021,27(10):1174-1178.
[12] 郑淑华,黄瑞玉,卢春敏,等.化学发光法和TPPA试验检测妇幼人群梅毒螺旋体抗体假阳性对比分析[J].中国皮肤性病学杂志,2021,35(3):349-352.
[13] 徐思琪,郭建伟,张姣丽,等.Western blot在梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体检测结果可疑样本复核中的应用价值[J].江苏医药,2021,47(12):1231-1234.
[14] 王欣俞,张延海,崔凯,等.西门子ADVIACentaurXP化学发光免疫分析仪检测梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体的测量阈值建立及结果比较[J].生物工程学报,2020,36(8):1672-1678.
[15] 林明春,杨永红,朱小灯,等.ELISA和TRUST法在梅毒检测中的应用价值比较[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2020,41(10):1219-1220.
[16] 吕松琴,孙溪若,黄山,等.干式荧光发光法快速检测梅毒螺旋体抗体的方法建立和初步应用与评价[J].现代检验医学杂志,2021,36(6):152-156.
[17] 艾尼瓦尔·吾拉木,帕丽扎提·阿不都热依木,刘晓萱,等.脑脊液梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验对艾滋病阴性神经梅毒的临床诊断价值[J].中国临床医生杂志,2022,50(1):86-88.
[18] 景文博,姚秀.梅毒螺旋体明胶凝集试验定量检测在神经梅毒诊疗中的临床意义研究[J].贵州医药,2021,45(5):802-803.
[19] 曾雪珍,古醒辉,许晓绚,等.深圳市2007-2009年和2017-2019年无偿献血人群梅毒血清学检测结果分析[J].中国艾滋病性病,2021,27(3):299-301.
[20] 汤小琳,梁铭,曹存巍,等.早期梅毒患者血清甲苯胺红不加热血清试验滴度与神经梅毒发生的相关性分析[J].中国性科学,2022,31(6):137-140.
[21] 汪峰,陈铭,张超,等.不同检测方法对梅毒特异性抗体呈低反应性血清样本检测结果的分析[J].中国艾滋病性病,2019,25(3):305-306.
[22] 庄洁伟,郭辉,汪小娟.ELISA与TRUST在妊娠合并梅毒患者筛查中的应用价值对比[J].中国性科学,2019,28(12):118-120.
[23] 徐东江,王克迪,吴俊.三种梅毒血清学检测策略在临床梅毒诊断中的应用研究[J].中国艾滋病性病,2019,25(9):936-942,960.