Loading…

Cell-based assays for the detection of MOG antibodies: a comparative study

Background The detection of antibodies to myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) is fundamental for the identification of MOG antibody-associated disorders (MOGAD), and the differential diagnosis of acquired demyelinating syndromes of the CNS, among which multiple sclerosis (MS). We compared the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of neurology 2020-12, Vol.267 (12), p.3555-3564
Main Authors: Gastaldi, Matteo, Scaranzin, Silvia, Jarius, Sven, Wildeman, Brigitte, Zardini, Elisabetta, Mallucci, Giulia, Rigoni, Eleonora, Vegezzi, Elisa, Foiadelli, Thomas, Savasta, Salvatore, Banfi, Paola, Versino, Maurizio, Benedetti, Luana, Novi, Giovanni, Mancardi, Margherita Maria, Giacomini, Thea, Annovazzi, Pietro, Baroncini, Damiano, Ferraro, Diana, Lampasona, Vito, Reindl, Markus, Waters, Patrick, Franciotta, Diego
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The detection of antibodies to myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) is fundamental for the identification of MOG antibody-associated disorders (MOGAD), and the differential diagnosis of acquired demyelinating syndromes of the CNS, among which multiple sclerosis (MS). We compared the diagnostic performance of four cell-based assays (CBAs) for their detection. Methods Consecutive sera from 204 patients with ‘possible MOGAD’ (55), MS (112), and other neurological disorders (OND, 37) were tested for MOG-IgG with a live-CBA with anti-heavy-and-light chain secondary-antibody (LCBA-IgG H+L ), and a live-CBA for IgG 1 (LCBA-IgG 1 ). A subgroup of 71 patients was additionally tested with a live-CBA with anti-Fcγ secondary-antibody (LCBA-IgG Fcγ ), and a commercial fixed-CBA with anti-Fcγ secondary-antibody (FCBA-IgG Fcγ ) . Results Fifty-seven/204 patients (27.9%) were MOG-IgG-positive. Sensitivity was 89.1% (CI:77.8–95.9) and specificity 93.3% (CI:88.0–96.7) for LCBA-IgG H+L , and 74.6% (CI:61.0–85.3) and 100% (CI:97.6–100) for LCBA-IgG 1 . Eighteen of 57 (31%) samples showed discrepant results (all negative on LCBA-IgG 1 ); of these, three with ‘possible MOGAD’ showed high-titer MOG-IgG (≥ 1:640), and positivity for MOG-IgG 2 , whereas 15/18 had low-titer MOG-IgG (1:160/1:320) and mixed diagnoses (5 ‘possible MOGAD’, 6 MS, 4 OND). In the subgroup analysis, sensitivity was 92.3% (CI:79.1–98.4) and specificity 97.0% (CI:83.8–99.9) for LCBA-IgG Fcγ , and 87.2% (CI:72.6–95.7) and 97.0% (CI:83.8–99.9) for FCBA-IgG Fcγ . Conclusions LCBA-IgG 1 showed the highest specificity but can miss MOG-IgG 2 reactivities, whose meaning warrants further investigations. Titration of samples tested with LCBA-IgG H+L / IgG Fcγ is important for meaningful interpretation of the results. In the subgroup analysis, LCBA-IgG Fcγ yielded the highest accuracy, and FCBA-IgG Fcγ good specificity, but it was at risk of false-negative results.
ISSN:0340-5354
1432-1459
DOI:10.1007/s00415-020-10024-0