International multicenter examination of MOG antibody assays
Reindl M., Schanda K., Woodhall M., Tea F., Ramanathan S., Sagen J., Fryer JP., Mills J., Teegen B., Mindorf S., Ritter N., Krummrei U., Stöcker W., Eggert J., Flanagan EP., Ramberger M., Hegen H., Rostasy K., Berger T., Leite MI., Palace J., Irani SR., Dale RC., Probst C., Probst M., Brilot F., Pittock SJ., Waters P.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>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).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec>