Inter-Laboratory Validation of Nodal/Paranodal Antibody Testing

IF 3.9 3区医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1111/jns.70000

Cinta Lleixà, Maarten Titulaer, Sophia Rohrbacher, Victor Mgbachi, Susan Halstead, Janev Fehmi, Elba Pascual-Goñi, Louisa Zhu, Luise Appeltshauser, Suzanne Franken, Manuela Paunovic, Patrick Waters, Hugh Willison, Claudia Sommer, Luis Querol, Ruth Huizinga, Kathrin Doppler, Simon Rinaldi

{"title":"Inter-Laboratory Validation of Nodal/Paranodal Antibody Testing","authors":"Cinta Lleixà, Maarten Titulaer, Sophia Rohrbacher, Victor Mgbachi, Susan Halstead, Janev Fehmi, Elba Pascual-Goñi, Louisa Zhu, Luise Appeltshauser, Suzanne Franken, Manuela Paunovic, Patrick Waters, Hugh Willison, Claudia Sommer, Luis Querol, Ruth Huizinga, Kathrin Doppler, Simon Rinaldi","doi":"10.1111/jns.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\n \n <p>Reliable detection of antibodies against nodal targets is vital for the diagnosis of autoimmune nodopathies. The performance characteristics of recently developed in-house assays are unknown. We compared testing at four centres.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Each submitted 29–40 serum samples to a coordinating centre from one of three groups: (1) autoimmune nodopathy patients, with positive nodal/paranodal antibodies; (2) seronegative patients with other inflammatory neuropathies, and (3) healthy individuals or those with other neurological diseases. The coordinating centre recoded all samples and returned 160 identical aliquots to each testing centre for blinded testing. Once data from all centres had been received by the coordinating centre, unblinded results were returned for analysis. Sensitivity was defined by the proportion of group 1 samples returned as positive. Accuracy was defined as 0.075(sensitivity) + 0.925(specificity).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Centres performed various combinations of ELISA, cell-based (CBAs) and teased-nerve fibre assays. All labs produced highly accurate results (96%–100%) and concordance for the overall result across at least 3 or all 4 test centres was observed for 98% and 89% of the samples respectively. However, 10/30 individual assays (6/14 CBAs and 4/16 ELISAs) were less than 90% sensitive. Only 3 assays had more than 1 false positive result (2 ELISAs and 1 CBA). Combining different assay modalities to produce an overall result did not improve accuracy. Inter-laboratory consistency in the determination of antibody subclasses was poor.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Interpretation</h3>\n \n <p>Although most samples were correctly categorised in all 4 centres, the use of a specific test modality or multiple tests did not guarantee accuracy. Early and repeated interlaboratory testing with sharing of samples is important to understand test performance and reproducibility, identify areas for improvement and maintain consistency. To aid this, we provide detailed methods for the best performing tests. Further standardisation of antibody subclass determination is required.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jns.70000","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims

Reliable detection of antibodies against nodal targets is vital for the diagnosis of autoimmune nodopathies. The performance characteristics of recently developed in-house assays are unknown. We compared testing at four centres.

Methods

Each submitted 29–40 serum samples to a coordinating centre from one of three groups: (1) autoimmune nodopathy patients, with positive nodal/paranodal antibodies; (2) seronegative patients with other inflammatory neuropathies, and (3) healthy individuals or those with other neurological diseases. The coordinating centre recoded all samples and returned 160 identical aliquots to each testing centre for blinded testing. Once data from all centres had been received by the coordinating centre, unblinded results were returned for analysis. Sensitivity was defined by the proportion of group 1 samples returned as positive. Accuracy was defined as 0.075(sensitivity) + 0.925(specificity).

Results

Centres performed various combinations of ELISA, cell-based (CBAs) and teased-nerve fibre assays. All labs produced highly accurate results (96%–100%) and concordance for the overall result across at least 3 or all 4 test centres was observed for 98% and 89% of the samples respectively. However, 10/30 individual assays (6/14 CBAs and 4/16 ELISAs) were less than 90% sensitive. Only 3 assays had more than 1 false positive result (2 ELISAs and 1 CBA). Combining different assay modalities to produce an overall result did not improve accuracy. Inter-laboratory consistency in the determination of antibody subclasses was poor.

Interpretation

Although most samples were correctly categorised in all 4 centres, the use of a specific test modality or multiple tests did not guarantee accuracy. Early and repeated interlaboratory testing with sharing of samples is important to understand test performance and reproducibility, identify areas for improvement and maintain consistency. To aid this, we provide detailed methods for the best performing tests. Further standardisation of antibody subclass determination is required.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

6.10

自引率

7.90%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System is the official journal of the Peripheral Nerve Society. Founded in 1996, it is the scientific journal of choice for clinicians, clinical scientists and basic neuroscientists interested in all aspects of biology and clinical research of peripheral nervous system disorders. The Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes high quality articles on cell and molecular biology, genomics, neuropathic pain, clinical research, trials, and unique case reports on inherited and acquired peripheral neuropathies. Original articles are organized according to the topic in one of four specific areas: Mechanisms of Disease, Genetics, Clinical Research, and Clinical Trials. The journal also publishes regular review papers on hot topics and Special Issues on basic, clinical, or assembled research in the field of peripheral nervous system disorders. Authors interested in contributing a review-type article or a Special Issue should contact the Editorial Office to discuss the scope of the proposed article with the Editor-in-Chief.