International multicenter examination of MOG antibody assays.

Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm

From the Clinical Department of Neurology (M. Reindl, K.S., M. Ramberger, H.H.), Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria; Oxford Autoimmune Neurology Group (M.W., M. Ramberger, M.I.L., J.P., S.R.I., P.W.), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom; Brain Autoimmunity Group (F.T., S.R., R.C.D., F.B.), Kids Neuroscience Centre at Kids Research at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.S., J.P.F., J.M., E.P.F., S.J.P.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Euroimmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG (B.T., S.M., N.R., U.K., W.S., C.P.), Lübeck, Germany; Institute for Quality Assurance (ifQ) affiliated to Euroimmun (J.E., M.P.), Lübeck, Germany; Paediatric Neurology (K.R.), Witten/Herdecke University, Children's Hospital Datteln, Datteln, Germany; and Department of Neurology (T.B.), Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

Published: March 2020

Objective: To compare the reproducibility of 11 antibody assays for immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibodies (MOG-IgG and MOG-IgM) from 5 international centers.

Methods: The following samples were analyzed: MOG-IgG clearly positive sera (n = 39), MOG-IgG low positive sera (n = 39), borderline negative sera (n = 13), clearly negative sera (n = 40), and healthy blood donors (n = 30). As technical controls, 18 replicates (9 MOG-IgG positive and 9 negative) were included. All samples and controls were recoded, aliquoted, and distributed to the 5 testing centers, which performed the following antibody assays: 5 live and 1 fixed immunofluorescence cell-based assays (CBA-IF, 5 MOG-IgG, and 1 MOG-IgM), 3 live flow cytometry cell-based assays (CBA-FACS, all MOG-IgG), and 2 ELISAs (both MOG-IgG).

Results: We found excellent agreement (96%) between the live CBAs for MOG-IgG for samples previously identified as clearly positive or negative from 4 different national testing centers. The agreement was lower with fixed CBA-IF (90%), and the ELISA showed no concordance with CBAs for detection of human MOG-IgG. All CBAs showed excellent interassay reproducibility. The agreement of MOG-IgG CBAs for borderline negative (77%) and particularly low positive (33%) samples was less good. Finally, most samples from healthy blood donors (97%) were negative for MOG-IgG in all CBAs.

Conclusions: Live MOG-IgG CBAs showed excellent agreement for high positive and negative samples at 3 international testing centers. Low positive samples were more frequently discordant than in a similar comparison of aquaporin-4 antibody assays. Further research is needed to improve international standardization for clinical care.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7051197PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000000674DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

antibody assays
16
low positive
12
positive negative
12
testing centers
12
mog-igg cbas
12
mog-igg
11
mog-igg mog-igm
8
clearly positive
8
positive sera
8
borderline negative
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!