Cargando…

A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays

OBJECTIVES: To compares 3 different myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein–immunoglobulin G (IgG) cell-based assays (CBAs) from 3 international centers. METHODS: Serum samples from 394 patients were as follows: acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (28), seronegative neuromyelitis optica (27), optic neu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Waters, Patrick J., Komorowski, Lars, Woodhall, Mark, Lederer, Sabine, Majed, Masoud, Fryer, Jim, Mills, John, Flanagan, Eoin P., Irani, Sarosh R., Kunchok, Amy C., McKeon, Andrew, Pittock, Sean J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511109/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30728305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007096
_version_ 1783417519056355328
author Waters, Patrick J.
Komorowski, Lars
Woodhall, Mark
Lederer, Sabine
Majed, Masoud
Fryer, Jim
Mills, John
Flanagan, Eoin P.
Irani, Sarosh R.
Kunchok, Amy C.
McKeon, Andrew
Pittock, Sean J.
author_facet Waters, Patrick J.
Komorowski, Lars
Woodhall, Mark
Lederer, Sabine
Majed, Masoud
Fryer, Jim
Mills, John
Flanagan, Eoin P.
Irani, Sarosh R.
Kunchok, Amy C.
McKeon, Andrew
Pittock, Sean J.
author_sort Waters, Patrick J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compares 3 different myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein–immunoglobulin G (IgG) cell-based assays (CBAs) from 3 international centers. METHODS: Serum samples from 394 patients were as follows: acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (28), seronegative neuromyelitis optica (27), optic neuritis (21 single, 2 relapsing), and longitudinally extensive (10 single, 3 recurrent). The control samples were from patients with multiple sclerosis (244), hypergammaglobulinemia (42), and other (17). Seropositivity was determined by visual observation on a fluorescence microscope (Euroimmun fixed CBA, Oxford live cell CBA) or flow cytometry (Mayo live cell fluorescence-activated cell sorting assay). RESULTS: Of 25 samples positive by any methodology, 21 were concordant on all 3 assays, 2 were positive at Oxford and Euroimmun, and 2 were positive only at Oxford. Euroimmun, Mayo, and Oxford results were as follows: clinical specificity 98.1%, 99.6%, and 100%; positive predictive values (PPVs) 82.1%, 95.5%, and 100%; and negative predictive values 79.0%, 78.8%, and 79.8%. Of 5 false-positives, 1 was positive at both Euroimmun and Mayo and 4 were positive at Euroimmun alone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a high degree of agreement was observed across 3 different MOG-IgG CBAs. Both live cell-based methodologies had superior PPVs to the fixed cell assays, indicating that positive results in these assays are more reliable indicators of MOG autoimmune spectrum disorders.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6511109
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65111092019-06-12 A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays Waters, Patrick J. Komorowski, Lars Woodhall, Mark Lederer, Sabine Majed, Masoud Fryer, Jim Mills, John Flanagan, Eoin P. Irani, Sarosh R. Kunchok, Amy C. McKeon, Andrew Pittock, Sean J. Neurology Article OBJECTIVES: To compares 3 different myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein–immunoglobulin G (IgG) cell-based assays (CBAs) from 3 international centers. METHODS: Serum samples from 394 patients were as follows: acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (28), seronegative neuromyelitis optica (27), optic neuritis (21 single, 2 relapsing), and longitudinally extensive (10 single, 3 recurrent). The control samples were from patients with multiple sclerosis (244), hypergammaglobulinemia (42), and other (17). Seropositivity was determined by visual observation on a fluorescence microscope (Euroimmun fixed CBA, Oxford live cell CBA) or flow cytometry (Mayo live cell fluorescence-activated cell sorting assay). RESULTS: Of 25 samples positive by any methodology, 21 were concordant on all 3 assays, 2 were positive at Oxford and Euroimmun, and 2 were positive only at Oxford. Euroimmun, Mayo, and Oxford results were as follows: clinical specificity 98.1%, 99.6%, and 100%; positive predictive values (PPVs) 82.1%, 95.5%, and 100%; and negative predictive values 79.0%, 78.8%, and 79.8%. Of 5 false-positives, 1 was positive at both Euroimmun and Mayo and 4 were positive at Euroimmun alone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a high degree of agreement was observed across 3 different MOG-IgG CBAs. Both live cell-based methodologies had superior PPVs to the fixed cell assays, indicating that positive results in these assays are more reliable indicators of MOG autoimmune spectrum disorders. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2019-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6511109/ /pubmed/30728305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007096 Text en © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
Waters, Patrick J.
Komorowski, Lars
Woodhall, Mark
Lederer, Sabine
Majed, Masoud
Fryer, Jim
Mills, John
Flanagan, Eoin P.
Irani, Sarosh R.
Kunchok, Amy C.
McKeon, Andrew
Pittock, Sean J.
A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays
title A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays
title_full A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays
title_fullStr A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays
title_full_unstemmed A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays
title_short A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays
title_sort multicenter comparison of mog-igg cell-based assays
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6511109/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30728305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007096
work_keys_str_mv AT waterspatrickj amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT komorowskilars amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT woodhallmark amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT lederersabine amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT majedmasoud amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT fryerjim amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT millsjohn amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT flanaganeoinp amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT iranisaroshr amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT kunchokamyc amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT mckeonandrew amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT pittockseanj amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT waterspatrickj multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT komorowskilars multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT woodhallmark multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT lederersabine multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT majedmasoud multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT fryerjim multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT millsjohn multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT flanaganeoinp multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT iranisaroshr multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT kunchokamyc multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT mckeonandrew multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays
AT pittockseanj multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays