OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of immunofluorescence (IF) and immunoprecipitation (IP) assays using green fluorescent protein-tagged aquaporin-4 (AQP4) in 6335 patients for whom serological evaluation was requested on a service basis. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Mayo Clinic Neuroimmunology Laboratory (Rochester, Minnesota) and Departments of Neurology (Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida). Patients Group 1, 835 Mayo Clinic patients, 100 with a neuromyelitis optica (NMO) spectrum disorder diagnosis and 735 without NMO spectrum disorder; group 2, 5500 non-Mayo Clinic patients. Main Outcome Measure Sensitivity and specificity of each assay for NMO or NMO spectrum disorder, individually and combined. RESULTS: In group 1, the sensitivity rates for NMO were IF, 58%; IP, 33%; and combined assays, 63%. The sensitivity rates for relapsing longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis were IF, 29%; IP, 6%; and combined assays, 29%. The specificity rates for NMO and relapsing longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis were IF, 99.6%; IP, 99.3%; and combined assays, 99.2%. In group 2, NMO-IgG was detected by IF in 498 of 5500 patients (9.1%) and by IP in 331 patients (6.0%); 76 of the 331 patients seropositive by IP (23%) were negative by IF. Clinical information was available for 124 patients (including 16 of those seropositive by IP only); 123 had a definite NMO spectrum disorder and 1 was at risk for NMO (monophasic optic neuritis). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, clinical practice-based study, NMO-IgG detected by IF or IP was highly specific for NMO spectrum disorders. The IP assay was significantly less sensitive than IF. Combined testing improved sensitivity by 5%.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of immunofluorescence (IF) and immunoprecipitation (IP) assays using green fluorescent protein-tagged aquaporin-4 (AQP4) in 6335 patients for whom serological evaluation was requested on a service basis. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING:Mayo Clinic Neuroimmunology Laboratory (Rochester, Minnesota) and Departments of Neurology (Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida). Patients Group 1, 835 Mayo Clinic patients, 100 with a neuromyelitis optica (NMO) spectrum disorder diagnosis and 735 without NMO spectrum disorder; group 2, 5500 non-Mayo Clinic patients. Main Outcome Measure Sensitivity and specificity of each assay for NMO or NMO spectrum disorder, individually and combined. RESULTS: In group 1, the sensitivity rates for NMO were IF, 58%; IP, 33%; and combined assays, 63%. The sensitivity rates for relapsing longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis were IF, 29%; IP, 6%; and combined assays, 29%. The specificity rates for NMO and relapsing longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis were IF, 99.6%; IP, 99.3%; and combined assays, 99.2%. In group 2, NMO-IgG was detected by IF in 498 of 5500 patients (9.1%) and by IP in 331 patients (6.0%); 76 of the 331 patients seropositive by IP (23%) were negative by IF. Clinical information was available for 124 patients (including 16 of those seropositive by IP only); 123 had a definite NMO spectrum disorder and 1 was at risk for NMO (monophasic optic neuritis). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, clinical practice-based study, NMO-IgG detected by IF or IP was highly specific for NMO spectrum disorders. The IP assay was significantly less sensitive than IF. Combined testing improved sensitivity by 5%.
Authors: Amy M L Quek; Andrew McKeon; Vanda A Lennon; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Raffaele Iorio; Yujuan Jiao; Chiara Costanzi; Brian G Weinshenker; Dean M Wingerchuk; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Elizabeth A Shuster; Sean J Pittock Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2012-08
Authors: P J Waters; A McKeon; M I Leite; S Rajasekharan; V A Lennon; A Villalobos; J Palace; J N Mandrekar; A Vincent; A Bar-Or; S J Pittock Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Yujuan Jiao; James P Fryer; Vanda A Lennon; Sarah M Jenkins; Amy M L Quek; Carin Y Smith; Andrew McKeon; Chiara Costanzi; Raffaele Iorio; Brian G Weinshenker; Dean M Wingerchuk; Elizabeth A Shuster; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Sean J Pittock Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Patrick J Waters; Sean J Pittock; Jeffrey L Bennett; Sven Jarius; Brian G Weinshenker; Dean M Wingerchuk Journal: Clin Exp Neuroimmunol Date: 2014-04-22
Authors: Raffaele Iorio; James P Fryer; Shannon R Hinson; Petra Fallier-Becker; Hartwig Wolburg; Sean J Pittock; Vanda A Lennon Journal: J Autoimmun Date: 2012-08-18 Impact factor: 7.094
Authors: Koon H Chan; Jason S C Kwan; Philip W L Ho; Jessica W M Ho; Andrew C Y Chu; David B Ramsden Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 8.322