论文部分内容阅读
实验表明,对班氏 mf(+)者40例和马来 mf(+)者98例检测,IFAT 获得阳性率分别为90%和94%,FLISA 为95%和94%,对非流行区健康对照者,检测假阳性率 IFAT 为3.6%,ELISA 为5.4%。两种方法的敏感性和特异性均在90%以上,提示可用于丝虫病的免疫诊断。在基本消灭丝虫病11—14年的原班氏丝虫病高度流行区,以 IFAT 检测的抗体阳性率原 mf(+)组为10%(6/61),原 mf(-)组为6%(3/45),儿童组为3.23%(1/31),非流行区对照组为3.6%(4/111);ELISA 的实验结果为原 mf(+)组抗体阳性率16%(10/61),原 mf(-)组18%(9/50),儿童组为14%(1/31)。ELISA 检测的三组人群之间无显著性差异,但仍高于非流行区人群的抗体水平(5.4%)(P<0.01,P<0.01)。IFAT 的实验结果表明,经过10年以上,原班氏高度流行区的人群抗体水平已降至非流行区和正常人群水平。对两科方法联合应用于监测进行了观察,结果显示联合监测较单一方法为优,两种方法并联使用,敏感性提高至99.6%,特异性仍为90.8%,较适宜于对流行区人群的宏观监测。
The results showed that the positive rate of IFAT was 90% and 94% in FLS patients and 95% in FLISA patients, respectively, for the 98 cases of mf (+) in class B and 98 cases of mf (+) in male. In the control group, the false positive rate was 3.6% for IFAT and 5.4% for ELISA. The sensitivity and specificity of the two methods are more than 90%, suggesting that it can be used for immunodiagnosis of filariasis. In the highly endemic area of Bancroftian filariasis 11 to 14 years after the eradication of filariasis basically, the positive rate of antibody detected by IFAT was 10% (6/61) in the group of mf (+), the former mf (-) group was 6% (3/45) in children, 3.23% (1/31) in children and 3.6% (4/111) in non-endemic areas. The ELISA results showed that the antibody positive rate was 16% 10/61), 18% (9/50) in the original mf (-) group and 14% (1/31) in the children group. There was no significant difference between the three groups detected by ELISA, but still higher than that of non-endemic area (5.4%) (P <0.01, P <0.01). IFAT results show that, after more than 10 years, the original Banchi high prevalence of the population antibody levels have dropped to non-endemic areas and normal population levels. The results showed that the combined monitoring was better than the single method, and the two methods were used in parallel with the sensitivity increased to 99.6% and the specificity still 90.8%, which was more suitable for the population in the endemic areas Macro monitoring.