AbstractObjectiveThe first international consensus criteria for optic neuritis (ICON) were published in 2022. We applied these criteria to a prospective, global observational study of acute optic neuritis (ON).MethodsWe included 160 patients with a first‐ever acute ON suggestive of a demyelinating CNS disease from the Acute Optic Neuritis Network (ACON). We applied the 2022 ICON to all participants and subsequently adjusted the ICON by replacing a missing relative afferent pupillary defect (RAPD) or dyschromatopsia if magnetic resonance imaging pathology of the optical nerve plus optical coherence tomography abnormalities or certain biomarkers are present.ResultsAccording to the 2022 ICON, 80 (50%) patients were classified as definite ON, 12 (7%) patients were classified as possible ON, and 68 (43%) as not ON (NON). The main reasons for classification as NON were absent RAPD (52 patients, 76%) or dyschromatopsia (49 patients, 72%). Distribution of underlying ON etiologies was as follows: 78 (49%) patients had a single isolated ON, 41 (26%) patients were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, 25 (16%) patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody‐associated disease, and 15 (9%) with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. The application of the adjusted ON criteria yielded a higher proportion of patients classified as ON (126 patients, 79%).InterpretationAccording to the 2022 ICON, almost half of the included patients in ACON did not fulfill the requirements for classification of definite or possible ON, particularly due to missing RAPD and dyschromatopsia. Thorough RAPD examination and formal color vision testing are critical to the application of the 2022 ICON.
A worldwide multicentre comparison of assays for cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease
Background Different cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-beta 1–42 (A β 1–42 ), total Tau (Tau) and Tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (P-Tau) levels are reported, but currently there is a lack of quality control programmes. The aim of this study was to compare the measurements of these CSF biomarkers, between and within centres. Methods Three CSF-pool samples were distributed to 13 laboratories in 2004 and the same samples were again distributed to 18 laboratories in 2008. In 2004 six laboratories measured A β 1–42 , Tau and P-Tau and seven laboratories measured one or two of these marker(s) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). In 2008, 12 laboratories measured all three markers, three laboratories measured one or two marker(s) by ELISAs and three laboratories measured the markers by Luminex. Results In 2004, the ELISA intercentre coefficients of variance (interCV) were 31%, 21% and 13% for A β 1–42 , Tau and P-Tau, respectively. These were 37%, 16% and 15%, respectively, in 2008. When we restricted the analysis to the Innotest ® ( N = 13) for A β 1–42 , lower interCV were calculated (22%). The centres that participated in both years ( N = 9) showed interCVs of 21%, 15% and 9% and intra-centre coefficients (intraCV) of variance of 25%,18% and 7% in 2008. Conclusions The highest variability was found for A β 1–42 . The variabilities for Tau and P-Tau were lower in both years. The centres that participated in both years showed a high intraCV comparable to their interCV, indicating that there is not only a high variation between but also within centres. Besides a uniform standardization of (pre)analytical procedures, the same assay should be used to decrease the inter/intracentre variation.