A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays
<p><strong>Objectives</strong> To compares 3 different myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein–immunoglobulin G (IgG) cell-based assays (CBAs) from 3 international centers.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong> Serum samples from 394 patients were as follows: acute di...
| প্রধান লেখক: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| বিন্যাস: | Journal article |
| প্রকাশিত: |
American Academy of Neurology
2019
|
| _version_ | 1826302397522116608 |
|---|---|
| author | Waters, P Komorowski, L Woodhall, M Lederer, S Majed, M Fryer, J Mills, J Flanagan, E Irani, S Kunchok, A McKeon, A Pittock, S |
| author_facet | Waters, P Komorowski, L Woodhall, M Lederer, S Majed, M Fryer, J Mills, J Flanagan, E Irani, S Kunchok, A McKeon, A Pittock, S |
| author_sort | Waters, P |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p><strong>Objectives</strong> To compares 3 different myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein–immunoglobulin G (IgG) cell-based assays (CBAs) from 3 international centers.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong> 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).</p> <p><strong>Results</strong> 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.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong> 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.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:46:56Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:e78708c5-bd86-4239-a09a-45f9abf9f7d2 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:46:56Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | American Academy of Neurology |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:e78708c5-bd86-4239-a09a-45f9abf9f7d22022-03-27T10:39:32ZA multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assaysJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:e78708c5-bd86-4239-a09a-45f9abf9f7d2Symplectic Elements at OxfordAmerican Academy of Neurology2019Waters, PKomorowski, LWoodhall, MLederer, SMajed, MFryer, JMills, JFlanagan, EIrani, SKunchok, AMcKeon, APittock, S<p><strong>Objectives</strong> To compares 3 different myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein–immunoglobulin G (IgG) cell-based assays (CBAs) from 3 international centers.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong> 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).</p> <p><strong>Results</strong> 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.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong> 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.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Waters, P Komorowski, L Woodhall, M Lederer, S Majed, M Fryer, J Mills, J Flanagan, E Irani, S Kunchok, A McKeon, A Pittock, S 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 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT watersp amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT komorowskil amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT woodhallm amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT lederers amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT majedm amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT fryerj amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT millsj amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT flanagane amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT iranis amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT kunchoka amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT mckeona amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT pittocks amulticentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT watersp multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT komorowskil multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT woodhallm multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT lederers multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT majedm multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT fryerj multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT millsj multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT flanagane multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT iranis multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT kunchoka multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT mckeona multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays AT pittocks multicentercomparisonofmogiggcellbasedassays |