Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Reindl, Markus
• Schanda, Kathrin
• Woodhall, Mark
• Tea, Fiona
• Ramanathan, Sudarshini
• Sagen, Jessica
• Fryer, James P
• Mills, John
• Teegen, Bianca
• Mindorf, Swantje
• Ritter, Nora
• Krummrei, Ulrike
• Stöcker, Winfried
• Eggert, Juliane
• Flanagan, Eoin P
• Ramberger, Melanie
• Hegen, Harald
• Rostasy, Kevin
• Berger, Thomas
• Leite, Maria Isabel
• Palace, Jacqueline
• Irani, Sarosh R
• Dale, Russell C
• Probst, Christian
• Probst, Monika
• Brilot, Fabienne
• Pittock, Sean J
• Waters, Patrick

Titel

International multicenter examination of MOG antibody assays

Ist Teil von

• Neurology : neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation, 2020-03, Vol.7 (2), p.e674-e674

Ort / Verlag

United States: American Academy of Neurology

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• OBJECTIVETo 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. METHODSThe following samples were analyzedMOG-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 assays5 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). RESULTSWe 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. CONCLUSIONSLive 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.