Hook-effect in MAGLUMI immunoassay for serum anti-GAD antibodies in neurological disorders: When "wrong" matrix is the right choice

Antibodies against glutamic acid decarboxylase (anti-GAD) are a valuable diagnostic tool to detect severe autoimmune conditions as type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and anti-GAD related neurological disorders, having the latter more often anti-GAD concentrations in serum multiple times higher than in the former. Automated immunoassays, either with ELISA or chemiluminescent technology, are validated for diagnostic use in serum with analytical ranges suitable for T1DM diagnosis. In a patient presenting with a suspected autoimmune ataxia, anti-GAD testing on an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) resulted in slightly abnormal concentrations in serum (39.2 KIU/L) and very high concentrations in CSF (>280 KIU/L), thus prompting to proceed to serum dilutions to exclude a false negative result and a misdiagnosis. Different dilutions of serum resulted in nonlinear concentrations with endpoint result of 276,500 KIU/L at dilution 1:1000. CSF dilution was instead linear with endpoint result of 4050 KIU/L. In this case report we found that anti-GAD testing in CSF was essential to establish the clinical diagnosis and to suspect hook-effect in serum due to the excess of autoantibodies in this severe autoimmune condition.

Subgroup comparison according to clinical phenotype and serostatus in autoimmune encephalitis: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Autoimmune encephalitides (AE) include a spectrum of neurological disorders whose diagnosis revolves around the detection of neuronal antibodies (Abs). Consensus-based diagnostic criteria (AE-DC) allow clinic-serological subgrouping of AE, with unclear prognostic implications. The impact of AE-DC on patients' management was studied, focusing on the subgroup of Ab-negative-AE.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study on patients fulfilling AE-DC. All patients underwent Ab testing with commercial cell-based assays (CBAs) and, when available, in-house assays (immunohistochemistry, live/fixed CBAs, neuronal cultures) that contributed to defining final categories. Patients were classified as Ab-positive-AE [N-methyl-d-aspartate-receptor encephalitis (NMDAR-E), Ab-positive limbic encephalitis (LE), definite-AE] or Ab-negative-AE (Ab-negative-LE, probable-AE, possible-AE).

RESULTS

Commercial CBAs detected neuronal Abs in 70/118 (59.3%) patients. Testing 37/48 Ab-negative cases, in-house assays identified Abs in 11 patients (29.7%). A hundred and eighteen patients fulfilled the AE-DC, 81 (68.6%) with Ab-positive-AE (Ab-positive-LE, 40; NMDAR-E, 32; definite-AE, nine) and 37 (31.4%) with Ab-negative-AE (Ab-negative-LE, 17; probable/possible-AE, 20). Clinical phenotypes were similar in Ab-positive-LE versus Ab-negative-LE. Twenty-four/118 (20.3%) patients had tumors, and 19/118 (16.1%) relapsed, regardless of being Ab-positive or Ab-negative. Ab-positive-AE patients were treated earlier than Ab-negative-AE patients (P = 0.045), responded more frequently to treatments (92.3% vs. 65.6%, P < 0.001) and received second-line therapies more often (33.3% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.01). Delays in first-line therapy initiation were associated with poor response (P = 0.022; odds ratio 1.02; confidence interval 1.00-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In-house diagnostics improved Ab detection allowing better patient management but was available in a patient subgroup only, implying possible Ab-positive-AE underestimation. Notwithstanding this limitation, our findings suggest that Ab-negative-AE and Ab-positive-AE patients share similar oncological profiles, warranting appropriate tumor screening. Ab-negative-AE patients risk worse responses due to delayed and less aggressive treatments.