International multicenter examination of MOG antibody assays. Issue 2 (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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
• Is Part Of: Neurology. Volume 7:Issue 2(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: Neuroimmunology -- Periodicals; Neurology -- Periodicals; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000674
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2332-7812

Abstract

Abstract : 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.