A study on detecting specific antibodies of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome and treatment with integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine
- Author:
Feng CHU
;
Qing JI
;
Runmin YAN
;
Xiaming WANG
;
Bin PEI
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial
- From:
Journal of Integrative Medicine
2004;2(1):20-3
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To explore a simple speedy specific and sensitive method to detect specific IgM (sIgM) and IgG (sIgG) antibodies of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS),and to study the therapeutic effects of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine on HFRS. METHODS: The serum of 559 patients with HFRS were tested with colloidal gold immuno-dot assay (CGIDA) for sIgM and sIgG antibodies and compared with enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT). One hundred and one patients with HFRS were randomized into treatment group (n=50),treated with Kuhuang Injection, Shenmai Injection and Huangqi Liquid) and control group (n=51),treated with Ribarvirin and Ganlixin Injection). RESULTS: The positive rate of sIgM detected with CGIDA was 70.8% and the positive rate of sIgG detected with CGIDA was 87.5%. The days for fever decline, symptoms alleviation and sign relief between the treatment group and control group were similar (P>0.05). The days for recovery of kidney function in the control group was less than that in the treatment group (P<0.01). The rate of crossing shock stage in the treatment group was higher than that of the control group (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: CGIDA was more simple, speedy, specific and sensitive than ELISA or IFAT in detecting the sIgM or sIgG antibodies in serum of patients with HFRS. Although the sensitivity of CGIDA was lower than that of ELISA the CGIDA had no false positive reaction the sensitivity of CGIDA was higher than that of IFAT on detecting IgG. The effect of the treatment group was similar to that of the control group. But the crossing shock stage rate in the treatment group was higher than that of the control group while the control group was better than the treatment group in recovering the kidney function.
