AntiNMDA
23.9K views | +0 today
Follow
 
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
onto AntiNMDA
Scoop.it!

Stop testing for autoantibodies to the VGKC-complex: only request LGI1 and CASPR2 | Practical Neurology

Stop testing for autoantibodies to the VGKC-complex: only request LGI1 and CASPR2 | Practical Neurology | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
VGKC ANTIBODIES: ORIGINS OF A DIAGNOSTIC TEST The initial clinical insights describing an autoimmune basis for acquired neuromyotonia (Isaacs’ syndrome), a form of peripheral nerve hyperexcitability, emerged in Oxford around 30 years ago. A patient with severe disease, refractory to sodium channel blocking medications, showed almost complete symptom resolution after plasma exchange.1 Moreover, this patient’s purified IgG induced muscle hyperexcitability in phrenic nerve–diaphragm preparations. These findings suggested an underlying autoantibody-driven mechanism for neuromyotonia, with voltage-gated potassium channels (VGKCs) considered a likely antigenic target. This prediction was directly tested with alpha-dendrotoxin (α-DTX), a neurotoxin derived from green mamba snake venom. α-DTX labels Kv1.1, 1.2 and 1.6 potassium channels and was radioiodinated to label soluble mammalian brain extracts upon establishment of the VGKC antibody radioimmunoassay. This radioimmunoassay detected serum or cerebrospinal fluid autoantibodies that precipitated iodinated α-DTX. Hence, these autoantibodies were originally thought to bind VGKCs,2 3 and some reports even showed IgG from patients binding directly to oocyte or HEK293T-cell-expressed VGKCs.2– 4 During this series of molecular observations, VGKC antibodies were also identified in patients with Morvan’s syndrome (neuromyotonia with characteristic central nervous system manifestations)4 and limbic encephalitis.5– 7 Importantly, patients with these syndromes improved markedly following immunotherapy. Overall, these serological discoveries helped to describe and classify a potentially reversible set of autoimmune neurological conditions. Subsequently, these findings were rapidly disseminated through the neurology community. To avoid missing a potentially immunotherapy-responsive condition, VGKC antibodies were requested in patients with a wider spectrum of clinical features. This led to a large number of positive VGKC antibody results, in broad-ranging phenotypes. Many of these syndromes were not immunotherapy-responsive or intuitively immune-mediated. This non-distinctive set of syndromes led us to question how antibodies to a single protein family could cause such a variety of diseases (Figure 1). Figure 1 LGI1 and CASPR2—but not double-negative VGKC—autoantibodies predict characteristic, immunotherapy-responsive syndromes. Pathogenic antibodies (shown in purple) bind to the surface-exposed domains of LGI1 and CASPR2. Also, some autoantibodies against LGI1 bind to the domain which docks with its receptors, a disintegrin and metalloproteases (especially ADAM22/23). Autoantibodies that bind extracellular protein domains are pathogenic, manifesting with characteristic clinical syndromes including faciobrachial dystonic seizures, limbic encephalitis and neuromyotonia. Both LGI1- and CASPR2-antibody mediated syndromes classically affect elderly men in their sixth decade, who improve markedly with immunotherapies. HLA-DRB1*07:01 is strongly linked to patients with LGI1 antibodies, and HLA-DRB1*11:01 to patients with CASPR2 antibodies. The non-pathogenic antibodies (shown in red) have been shown to bind the intracellular domain of VGKCs, and some bind the I125-α-dendrotoxin (α-DTX) used in the original VGKC radioimmunoassays. The targets of other double-negative antibodies are unknown, but likely to be other intracellular epitopes. Double-negative VGKC antibodies are found in a wide array of clinical syndromes, including epilepsies, dementias and primary psychiatric conditions, which span wide age ranges and lack either a clear immunotherapy response or a specific HLA association. CASPR2, contactin-associated protein like-2; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; LGI1, leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1; VGKC, voltage-gated potassium channel. SPLITTING THE COMPLEX: IDENTIFICATION OF LGI1 AND CASPR2, AND CLINICAL ASSOCIATIONS Biochemical interrogation of proteins complexed to VGKCs identified that leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1) and contactin-associated protein like-2 (CASPR2) were the actual targets of patient autoantibodies in the immunotherapy-responsive syndromes: limbic encephalitis, Morvan’s syndrome and neuromyotonia.8 9 Also, a few patients had contactin-2 antibodies.8 Crucially, the extracellular-exposed domains of these proteins were the direct antigenic epitopes. Table 1 describes the characteristics of these molecules, plus the LGI1 receptors ADAM22 and 23. VIEW INLINE VIEW POPUP Table 1 Molecular characteristics of LGI1, CASPR2, and associated proteins LGI1 is a secreted neuronal protein, known to link pre- and post-synaptic terminals, akin to a molecular scaffold.19 Patients with LGI1 antibodies are typically aged over 60, with a 2:1 male to female predominance. LGI1 antibodies are prominent in patients with limbic encephalitis, found in many with Morvan’s syndrome, and in a few with neuromyotonia.8 9 23 In addition, around 50% of patients with LGI1-antibodies show a highly specific seizure semiology—termed faciobrachial dystonic seizures.24 Faciobrachial dystonic seizures typically begin before the onset of the cognitive impairment that characterises limbic encephalitis and are largely resistant to antiseizure medications but respond well to immunotherapies, often within a few days. They provide an excellent example of a distinctive phenotype with a robust response to immunotherapies whose characteristics translate to the other frequent focal seizure semiologies in patients with LGI1-antibodies.24 25 CASPR2 is a neurexin family protein with a large extracellular domain. Patients with CASPR2 autoantibodies are very often elderly males (Table 2). CASPR2 antibody–positive patients often have neuromyotonia or Morvan’s syndrome, and some have forms of limbic encephalitis as well as neuropathic pain syndromes. All typically respond to immunotherapy. Also, in patients with neuromyotonia and, especially, Morvan’s syndrome there is an association with tumours, typically thymomas.8 9 23 Importantly, LGI1 or CASPR2 specificities are rare outside of these syndromes. Taken together, LGI1 and CASPR2 antibodies have strong and specific clinical associations, and unequivocal clinical value in accurately detecting treatable syndromes. FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH DOUBLE-NEGATIVE VGKC ANTIBODIES More recently, data from several groups have clarified the clinical relevance of double-negative VGKC antibodies, that is, VGKC antibodies without LGI1 or CASPR2 reactivities.26– 28 Frequency and highly heterogeneous clinical features In the largest such series, testing of ~100 000 samples yielded 3910 (~4%) samples with VGKC antibodies. Only 256 of these 3910 (6.5%) showed concomitant LGI1 or CASPR2 reactivities.29 Other studies report comparable rates of LGI1/CASPR2 antibodies amongst VGKC-antibody positive results: ~20% in adults30 and, in children, <5%:31 both observations are consistent with our unpublished experience. Hence, double-negative VGKC antibodies appear to account for ~85% of routine VGKC antibody requests. Is there any clinical utility in detecting these common antibodies? The data suggest not. First, double-negative VGKC-complex autoantibodies occur in ~5% of healthy controls, complicating their interpretation especially with widespread testing.2 6 26 28 Second, and in marked contrast to the well-defined clinical phenotypes associated with LGI1 and CASPR2 autoantibodies (Figure 1, Table 2), double-negative VGKC antibodies associate with a constellation of syndromes without age or gender predilection. These range from epilepsies, non-neuropathic pain, Alzheimer’s disease, peripheral neuropathy and headache, to primary psychiatric syndromes and leptomeningeal metastasis.26– 28 32 Hence, it appears that double-negative VGKC antibodies have limited clinical specificity. Third, the VGKC antibody titre is not a clinically reliable measure: double-negative VGKC antibodies can occur at very high titres (eg 400–3000 pM). Therefore, the titre itself does not help in identifying LGI1 or CASPR2 specificity.26 27 29 30 33 Indeed, in clinical practice the concept of a ‘clinically relevant’ VGKC antibody titre has created many misdiagnoses, often where finding the antibody has overruled the clinical diagnosis.33– 36 VIEW INLINE VIEW POPUP Table 2 Comparisons of autoantibodies against LGI1, CASPR2, and the double-negative VGKC antibodies Immunotherapy response Patients with LGI1 and CASPR2 autoantibodies respond strikingly to immunotherapy, with improvements in 96%–100% of patients with LGI1 antibodies and 86%–100% with CASPR2 antibodies.24– 26 29 Hence, detecting LGI1 and CASPR2 antibodies has clear therapeutic importance. In marked contrast, patients with double-negative VGKC antibodies respond poorly to immunotherapy, with response rates equal to those of placebo studies, or to rates observed from patients with negative VGKC test results.26 28 44 Serological observations: intracellular binding and non-pathogenicity As our clinical suspicions increasingly indicated that double-negative antibodies had little clinical relevance, we predicted that studying their antigenic targets would offer clinically-relevant insights.28 First, we observed that the double-negative serum IgGs did not bind to any surface determinants expressed on live hippocampal neurons. Second, no double-negative IgGs bound to the extracellular domain of HEK293T cell surface expressed VGKCs. However, in this preparation, around one-third bound to intracellular aspects of the Kv1.1/1.2/1.6 subunits.8 28 Finally, a small proportion of the double-negative VGKC antibody sera directly bound the non-mammalian α-DTX employed in the radioimmunoassay. Taken together, these findings established that double-negative VGKC antibodies often bind targets that, in vivo in humans, are inaccessible or unavailable, thus mitigating their pathogenic potential. By contrast, LGI1 or CASPR2 antibodies typically show robust cell-surface reactivity to the native, mammalian target (Figure 2) and strong data support their in vitro and in vivo functionality. For example, LGI1 antibodies can disrupt interactions between LGI1 and its receptors ADAM22/23, internalise the LGI1–ADAM complex and trigger neuronal hyperexcitability and memory deficits in vivo passive transfer models.20 21 25 42 There is also clear evidence supporting the pathogenicity of CASPR2 antibodies with rodent passive transfer reproducing human pain manifestations, and evidence that the antibodies can disrupt CASPR2 interactions with contactin-2.22 43 Figure 2 Cell surface-reactive autoantibodies measured by live cell-based assays or live hippocampal neuron binding. A. LGI1 antibody live cell-based assay. Serum from a patient with LGI1 antibodies binds to the surface of live LGI1-expressing cells (top row) but healthy control sera (bottom row) do not bind these cells. LGI1 tagged to enhanced green fluorescent protein (LGI1-EGFP, green) is expressed on the surface of live HEK293T cells; detected with anti-human IgG secondary autoantibodies (red); DAPI nuclear staining (blue). Images taken at ×40 magnification. B. Live hippocampal neuron assay. Human IgG autoantibodies (green) from a CASPR2 autoantibody-positive patient stain the surface of live hippocampal neurons (red, stained with an antibody against MAP2, microtubule-associated protein 2). Punctate green staining is observed along the dendrites and neuronal cell body. There is no neuronal reactivity when live hippocampal neurons are stained with healthy control serum (right). DAPI nuclear staining (blue). Images taken at ×63 magnification. In cases with seronegative syndromes, where the clinical picture is characteristic but the patient has negative results for the standard panel of known autoantibodies (LGI1, CASPR2, NMDA-R, GABAA/B-R, etc), live neuronal testing is an available diagnostic test which can be requested at our specialist laboratory. In this assay, any neuronal reactivity demonstrated by the serum/CSF, as above, strongly suggests the presence of a novel neuronal surface antibody and allows identification of novel antigenic targets. CASPR2, contactin-associated protein like-2; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; DAPI, 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; GABAA/BR, gamma-amino butyric acid A/B receptor; LGI1, leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1; NMDA-R, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor. Genetic associations Recently, a very strong immunogenetic basis was established for the diseases associated with LGI1 and CASPR2 antibodies.32 40 41 45 HLA-DRB1*07:01 and HLA-DRB1*11:01 were found to be over-represented in patients with LGI1 autoantibodies (~95% vs ~25% in healthy controls) and in those with CASPR2 autoantibodies (~50% vs ~10% in healthy controls), respectively. Extended haplotype associations were also observed.32 Moreover, the few patients with both LGI1 and CASPR2 antibodies carried yet another set of distinct HLA alleles.32 By contrast, there were no distinct HLA associations in patients with intracellular VGKC antibodies.32 Our recent clinical observations suggest the HLA analyses may form a useful adjunct to complement clinico-serological diagnoses (Irani and Waters, unpublished data, 2020). THE TEST MATTERS: LIVE CELL-BASED ASSAYS AND THE LIMITED SENSITIVITY OF VGKC ANTIBODY TESTING Our understanding of test systems for detecting pathogenic antibodies has evolved. As only antibodies that can ‘see’ their targets in vivo have clear pathogenic potential, we prefer to use ‘live’ cell-based assays that present only extracellular domains of antibody targets. These avoid the detection of non-pathogenic species and the potential for contamination by fixative, which can alter target epitopes and permeabilise cells.46 Many diagnostic centres use fixed cell-based assays, largely for convenience. However, live testing remains biologically intuitive; it has a higher sensitivity and specificity, and can resolve samples that routine commercial kit testing assess as indeterminate.46– 49 Such target-specific cell-based assays, where individual proteins are selectively expressed on the surface of live cells without detergent or fixative, are possible across the range of surface-directed autoantibodies, including LGI1 and CASPR2⇓ (Figure 2A).8 These live cell-based assays have identified up to 15% of samples from patients with immunotherapy-responsive illnesses that have detectable LGI1 or CASPR2 antibodies but no VGKC-complex antibodies.50 51 Hence, direct LGI1 and CASPR2 antibody testing should be performed as first-line testing, not as a second-line reflexive test after a positive VGKC antibody result. SO, IS THERE ANY VALUE IN VGKC ANTIBODY TESTING? The above evidence strongly argues against VGKC antibody testing in routine clinical practice. Yet, these antibodies may have some limited value in the research setting. First, cohorts with positive VGKC antibodies may have high rates of malignancy (12%–47%), suggesting VGKC antibody as an onconeural marker.33– 36 However, such findings probably reflect an inherent clinical referral bias. Indeed, other reports suggest comparable tumour rates among patients with double-negative VGKC antibodies and matched VGKC-negative controls.26 Second, swine abattoir workers frequently have detectable, typically double negative, VGKC antibodies.39 While this is only rarely a vocational issue, it suggests that inhaled aerosolised brain tissue may be a model to study human autoimmunisation, although with resultant non-pathogenic reactivities. Interestingly, this observation suggests an inherent liability to a loss of immune tolerance against VGKC-complexed proteins may account for the high rates of VGKC antibodies occurring as secondary effects of multiple disparate disease processes.28 52 53 Finally, some observations suggest double-negative VGKC antibodies may co-exist with cell-surface autoantibodies.23 30 54 In this clinical context, the surface-directed antibody is likely to be directly pathogenic. Indeed, the high reported rates of VGKC antibodies in some diseases, such as neuromyotonia, may provide a lead for identification of samples with co-existent pathogenic reactivities. CONCLUSIONS: A CALL TO CHANGE CLINICAL PRACTICE In summary, double-negative VGKC antibodies usually target intracellular epitopes and lack pathogenic potential. They form the majority of the results in routine VGKC antibody testing. Importantly, and in stark contrast to finding antibodies directed against LGI1 and CASPR2, they do not predict a response to immunotherapy. Their detection in heterogeneous, often non-immune, clinical disorders at similar rates to healthy controls casts doubt on their detection in classic autoimmune scenarios. For example, this background rate is likely to the explain the common query that “my patient with Guillain–Barré syndrome / limbic encephalitis / Lambert–Eaton myasthenic syndrome has a double-negative VGKC of 1312 pM”. Further, the VGKC antibody radioimmunoassay is not an effective screening test for the key pathogenic autoantibody species as it misses ~15% of LGI1 or CASPR2 antibodies. Taken together, the evidence from multiple international groups suggests there are no longer clinical reasons to test for VGKC antibodies. Stopping this test will reduce clinically irrelevant results, improve diagnostic accuracy and limit the use of unnecessary, potentially toxic, immunotherapies in patients. Most ‘non-immune’ syndromes referred to our specialist centre are associated with ‘double-negative’ VGKC antibody results. Yet, several laboratories continue to offer VGKC antibody testing, sometimes as a screening test to prompt LGI1 and CASPR2 antibody testing. Presenting local laboratories with the data and conclusions herein should encourage a change in testing regimens, towards patient benefit. While this may be one of the final articles regarding VGKC antibody testing, work on LGI1 and CASPR2 antibodies will probably continue for several years, as the underlying immunology, autoantibody biology, and the molecular effector pathways still require clarification. These outputs could all impact on patient care by offering opportunities towards highly focussed examples of precision medicine. Nevertheless, for now, the evidence presented above should offer a marked improvement to the routine care of many patients each year. Key points Patients with pathogenic LGI1 or CASPR2 autoantibodies show distinct clinical syndromes and excellent responses to immunotherapy. In contrast, those with non-pathogenic VGKC antibodies but with no LGI1 or CASPR2 reactivities have heterogeneous clinical syndromes and poor responses to therapy. Testing for VGKC antibodies is deleterious for patient care and should cease. By contrast, directly testing for LGI1 and CASPR2 antibodies can offer clear clinical benefit, with an accurate diagnosis and the chance of disease-modifying therapies. Acknowledgments SRI is supported by the Wellcome Trust (104079/Z/14/Z), The UCB–Oxford University Alliance, BMA Research Grants—Vera Down (2013) and Margaret Temple (2017), Epilepsy Research UK (P1201) and by the Fulbright UK–US commission (MS-Research Society Award). The research was funded/supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC; The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health). PW is supported by the UK NMO commissioning group. We thank Dr Antonio Berretta for his contribution to live neuronal staining images used within figure 2. REFERENCES ↵ Sinha S , Newsom-Davis J , Mills K , et al. Autoimmune aetiology for acquired neuromyotonia (Isaac’s syndrome). Lancet 1991;13:75–7. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90073-X OpenUrl ↵ Shillito P , Molenaar PC , Vincent A , et al. Acquired neuromyotonia: evidence for autoantibodies directed against K+ channels of peripheral nerves. Ann Neurol 1995;38:714–22. ↵ Hart IK , Waters C , Vincent A , et al. Autoantibodies detected to expressed K+ channels are implicated in neuromyotonia. Ann Neurol 1997;41:238–46. doi: 10.1002/ana.410410215 ↵ Liguori R , Vincent A , Clover P . Morvan’s syndrome: peripheral and central nervous system and cardiac involvement with antibodies to voltage-gated potassium channels. Brain 2001;124:2417–26. doi: 10.1093/brain/124.12.2417 ↵ Pozo-Rosich P , Clover L , Saiz A . Voltage-gated potassium channel antibodies in limbic encephalitis. Ann Neurol 2003;54:530–5. doi: 10.1002/ana.10713 ↵ Vincent A , Buckley C , Schott JM , et al. Potassium channel antibody‐associated encephalopathy: a potentially immunotherapy‐responsive form of limbic encephalitis. Brain 2004;127:701–12. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh077 ↵ Thieben MJ , Lennon VA , Boeve BF , et al. Potentially reversible autoimmune limbic encephalitis with neuronal potassium channel antibody. Neurology 2004;62:1177–82. doi: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000122648.19196.02 OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Irani SR , Alexander S , Waters P , et al. Antibodies to Kv1 potassium channel-complex proteins leucine-rich, glioma inactivated 1 protein and contactin-associated protein-2 in limbic encephalitis, Morvan’s syndrome and acquired neuromyotonia. Brain 2010;133:2734–48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq213 ↵ Lai M , Huijbers MG , Lancaster E , et al. Investigation of LGI1 as the antigen in limbic encephalitis previously attributed to potassium channels: a case series. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:776–85. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70137-X Kalachikov S , Evgrafov O , Ross B , et al. Mutations in LGI1 cause autosomal-dominant partial epilepsy with auditory features. Nat Genet 2002;30:335–41. doi: 10.1038/ng832 Rodenas-Cuadrado P , Pietrafusa N , Francavilla T , et al. Characterisation of CASPR2 deficiency disorder - a syndrome involving autism, epilepsy and language impairment. BMC medical genetics. BMC Med Genet 2016;1:1–7.OpenUrl Muona M , Fukata Y , Anttonen A-K , et al. Dysfunctional ADAM22 implicated in progressive encephalopathy with cortical atrophy and epilepsy. Neurol Genet 2016;2:e46. doi: 10.1212/NXG.0000000000000046 Stogmann E , Reinthaler E , ElTawil S , et al. Autosomal recessive cortical myoclonic tremor and epilepsy: association with a mutation in the potassium channel associated gene CNTN2. Brain 2013;136:1155–60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt068 Sagane K , Ohya Y , Hasegawa Y , et al. Metalloproteinase-like, disintegrin-like, cysteine-rich proteins MDC2 and MDC3: novel human cellular disintegrins highly expressed in the brain. Biochem J 1998;334:93–8. doi: 10.1042/bj3340093 Savvaki M , Panagiotaropoulos T , Stamatakis A , et al. Impairment of learning and memory in TAG-1 deficient mice associated with shorter CNS internodes and disrupted juxtaparanodes. Mol Cell Neurosci 2008;39:478–90. doi: 10.1016/j.mcn.2008.07.025 Poliak S , Salomon D , Elhanany H , et al. Juxtaparanodal clustering of shaker-like K+ channels in myelinated axons depends on caspr2 and TAG-1. J Cell Biol 2003;162:1149–60. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200305018 Fukata Y , Lovero KL , Iwanaga T , et al. Disruption of LGI1-linked synaptic complex causes abnormal synaptic transmission and epilepsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:3799–804. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914537107 Sagane K , Ishihama Y , Sugimoto H . LGI1 and LGI4 bind to ADAM22, ADAM23 and ADAM11. Int J Biol Sci 2008;4:387–96. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.4.387 ↵ Schulte U , Thumfart J-O , Klöcker N , et al. The epilepsy-linked Lgi1 protein assembles into presynaptic Kv1 channels and inhibits inactivation by Kvβ1. Neuron 2006;49:697–706. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.033 ↵ Petit-Pedrol M , Sell J , Planagumà J , et al. LGI1 antibodies alter Kv1.1 and AMPA receptors changing synaptic excitability, plasticity and memory. Brain 2018; Nov 1. 141: 3144–59.OpenUrl ↵ Ramberger M , Berretta A , MM TJ , et al. Distinctive binding properties of patient-derived monoclonal LGI1-autoantibodies determine pathogenicity. Brain 2020; doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa104 ↵ Saint-Martin M , Joubert B , Pellier-Monnin V , et al., Contactin-associated protein-like 2, a protein of the neurexin family involved in several human diseases. Eur J Neurosci 2018;48:1906–23. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14081 doi: 10.1111/ejn.14081 OpenUrl ↵ Irani SR , Pettingill P , Kleopa KA , et al. Morvan syndrome: clinical and serological observations in 29 cases. Ann Neurol 2012;72:241–55. doi: 10.1002/ana.23577 OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Irani SR , Michell AW , Lang B , et al. Faciobrachial dystonic seizures precede LGI1 antibody limbic encephalitis. Ann Neurol 2011;69:892–900. doi: 10.1002/ana.22307 ↵ Thompson J , Bi M , Murchison AG , et al. The importance of early immunotherapy in patients with faciobrachial dystonic seizures. Brain 2017;141:348–56. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx323 OpenUrl ↵ van Sonderen A , Schreurs MWJ , de Bruijn MAAM , et al. The relevance of VGKC positivity in the absence of LGI1 and Caspr2 antibodies. Neurology 2016;86:1692–9.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Olberg H , Haugen M , Storstein A , et al. Neurological manifestations related to level of voltage-gated potassium channel antibodies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:941–3. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305252 OpenUrlFREE Full Text ↵ Lang B , Makuch M , Moloney T , et al. Intracellular and non-neuronal targets of voltage-gated potassium channel complex antibodies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017;88:353–61. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2016-314758 ↵ Gadoth A , Pittock SJ , Dubey D , et al. Expanded phenotypes and outcomes among 256 LGI1/CASPR2-IgG-positive patients. Ann Neurol 2017;82:79–92. doi: 10.1002/ana.24979 OpenUrl ↵ Klein CJ , Lennon VA , Aston PA , et al. Insights from LGI1 and CASPR2 potassium channel complex autoantibody subtyping. JAMA Neurol 2013;70:229–34. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.592 OpenUrl ↵ Chiriboga ASL , Klein C , Zekeridou A , et al. LGI1 and CASPR2 neurological autoimmunity in children. Ann Neurol 2018;84:473–80.OpenUrl ↵ Binks S , Varley J , Lee W , et al. Distinct HLA associations of LGI1 and CASPR2-antibody diseases. Brain 2018;141:2263–71. doi: 10.1093/brain/awy109 OpenUrl ↵ Paterson R , Zandi M , Armstrong R , et al. Clinical relevance of positive voltage-gated potassium channel (VGKC)-complex antibodies: experience from a tertiary referral centre. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85:625–30. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305218 Huda S , Wong SH , Pettingill P , et al. An 11-year retrospective experience of antibodies against the voltage-gated potassium channel (VGKC) complex from a tertiary neurological centre. J Neurol 2014;262:418–24. doi: 10.1007/s00415-014-7588-0 OpenUrl Jammoul A , Shayya L , Mente K , et al. Clinical utility of seropositive voltage-gated potassium channel: complex antibody. Neurol Clin Pract Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology. 2016;6:409–18. ↵ Tan KM , Lennon VA , Klein CJ , et al. Clinical spectrum of voltage-gated potassium channel autoimmunity. Neurology 2008;70:1883–90.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Lancaster E , Huijbers MGM , Bar V , et al. Investigations of caspr2, an autoantigen of encephalitis and neuromyotonia. Ann Neurol 2011;69:303–11. doi: 10.1002/ana.22297 Dahm L , Ott C , Steiner J , et al. Seroprevalence of autoantibodies against brain antigens in health and disease. Ann Neurol 2014;76:82–94. doi: 10.1002/ana.24189 OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Meeusen JW , Klein CJ , Pirko I , et al. Potassium channel complex autoimmunity induced by inhaled brain tissue aerosol. Ann Neurol 2012;71:417–26. doi: 10.1002/ana.22674 OpenUrlPubMed ↵ Kim T-J , Lee S-T , Moon J , et al. Anti-LGI1 encephalitis is associated with unique HLA subtypes. Ann Neurol 2017;81:183–92.OpenUrl ↵ Mueller SH , Färber A , Prüss H , et al. Genetic predisposition in anti-LGI1 and anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Ann Neurol 2018;83:863–9. doi: 10.1002/ana.25216 OpenUrl ↵ Ohkawa T , Fukata Y , Yamasaki M , et al. Autoantibodies to epilepsy-related LGI1 in limbic encephalitis neutralize LGI1-ADAM22 interaction and reduce synaptic AMPA receptors. J Neurosci 2013;33:18161–74. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3506-13.2013 ↵ Dawes JM , Weir GA , Middleton SJ , et al. Immune or genetic-mediated disruption of CASPR2 causes pain hypersensitivity due to enhanced primary afferent excitability. Neuron 2018;97:806–22. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.01.033 OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Bittar C , Nascimento OJM , Placebo and nocebo effects in the neurological practice. Arq Neuro-Psiquiatr 2015;73:58–63. doi: 10.1590/0004-282X20140180 OpenUrl ↵ van Sonderen A , Roelen DL , Stoop JA , et al. Anti-LGI1 encephalitis is strongly associated with HLA-DR7 and HLA-DRB4. Ann Neurol 2017;81:193–8.OpenUrl ↵ Tea F , Lopez JA , Ramanathan S , et al. Characterization of the human myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody response in demyelination. Acta Neuropathol Commun 2019;7:1451–22.OpenUrl McCracken L , Zhang J , Greene M , et al. Improving the antibody-based evaluation of autoimmune encephalitis. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2017;4:e404–7. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000404 Waters PJ , Komorowski L , Woodhall M , et al. A multicenter comparison of MOG-IgG cell-based assays. Neurology 2019;92:e1250–5.OpenUrl ↵ Waters P , Reindl M , Saiz A , et al. Multicentre comparison of a diagnostic assay: aquaporin-4 antibodies in neuromyelitis optica. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87:1005–15. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2015-312601 ↵ Irani SR , Stagg CJ , Schott JM , et al. Faciobrachial dystonic seizures: the influence of immunotherapy on seizure control and prevention of cognitive impairment in a broadening phenotype. Brain 2013;136:3151–62. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt212 ↵ Becker EBE , Zuliani L , Pettingill R , et al. Contactin-associated protein-2 antibodies in non-paraneoplastic cerebellar ataxia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:437–40. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2011-301506 ↵ Jones M , Odunsi S , Plessis Du D , et al. Gerstmann-straüssler-scheinker disease: novel PRNP mutation and VGKC-complex antibodies. Neurology 2014;82:2107–11.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Rossi M , Mead S , Collinge J , et al. Neuronal antibodies in patients with suspected or confirmed sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86:692–4. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2014-308695 ↵ Pettingill P , Kramer HB , Coebergh JA , et al. Antibodies to GABAA receptor α1 and γ2 subunits: clinical and serologic characterization. Neurology 2015;84:1233–41.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
No comment yet.
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Neural Antibody Testing in Patients with Suspected Autoimmune Encephalitis | Clinical Chemistry | Oxford Academic

Neural Antibody Testing in Patients with Suspected Autoimmune Encephalitis | Clinical Chemistry | Oxford Academic | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
AbstractBackground. Autoimmunity is an increasingly recognized cause of encephalitis with a similar prevalence to that of infectious etiologies. Over the past d
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Ten Point Guide to Mental State Examination (MSE) in Psychiatry

Ten Point Guide to Mental State Examination (MSE) in Psychiatry | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
This 10 point guide to mental state exam (MSE) enhaces your psychiatric evaluation skills. An accurate MSE assists in the diagnosis of mental illness.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Hallucinations Lead to Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis for Young Woman

Hallucinations Lead to Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis for Young Woman | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Lauren went from a psychiatric ward in a local hospital to the ICU....
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Pathophysiology of paraneoplastic and autoimmune encephalitis: genes, infections, and checkpoint inhibitors - Alberto Vogrig, Sergio Muñiz-Castrillo, Virginie Desestret, Bastien Joubert, Jérôme Hon...

Pathophysiology of paraneoplastic and autoimmune encephalitis: genes, infections, and checkpoint inhibitors - Alberto Vogrig, Sergio Muñiz-Castrillo, Virginie Desestret, Bastien Joubert, Jérôme Hon... | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNSs) are rare complications of systemic cancers that can affect all parts of the central and/or peripheral nervous system. A body of experimental and clinica...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Relationship between serum NMDA receptor antibodies and response to antipsychotic treatment in first episode psychosis

Relationship between serum NMDA receptor antibodies and response to antipsychotic treatment in first episode psychosis | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
When psychosis develops in NMDAR antibody encephalitis it usually has an acute or
subacute onset, and antipsychotic treatment may be ineffective and associated with
adverse effects. Serum NMDAR antibodies have been reported in a minority of patients with first episode psychosis (FEP), but their...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343817904_Anti-N-methyl-D-Aspartate_NMDA_Receptor_Encephalitis_A_Case_Report

No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Defying the odds, U of T's Carisse Samuel to graduate after spending five months in a coma

Defying the odds, U of T's Carisse Samuel to graduate after spending five months in a coma | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
When Carisse Samuel joins her fellow graduates at the University of Toronto’s virtual convocation this Saturday, the celebration will be both an academic and personal victory.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Clinical features which predict neuronal surface autoantibodies in new-onset focal epilepsy: implications for immunotherapies | Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Introduction Neuronal surface-directed antibodies (NSAbs) are considered pathogenic in patients with autoimmune encephalitis (AE). AE commonly presents with prominent seizures and neuropsychiatric features and shows a preferential response to immunotherapies versus anti-seizure medications (ASMs).1–4 This has prompted the introduction of ‘epilepsy of immune aetiology’ within the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) 2017 classification.5 The same NSAbs, as well as high levels of antibodies to intraneuronal glutamic acid decarboxylase-65 (GAD65), are also described in the serum of people with more isolated forms of epilepsy, without core features of encephalitis.6–8 In this context, their clinical, aetiological and therapeutic relevance is unclear, but of major potential importance to all neurologists who manage new-onset epilepsy. In our large, prospective, real-world study of new-onset focal epilepsy, we predicted that formes frustes of AE would help identify clinical features suggesting the presence of NSAbs and asked whether detection of these NSAbs should alter patient management. Materials and methods Between 9 December 2011 and 4 November 2015, consecutive adult patients (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of new-onset focal epilepsy and their first seizure within the previous 12 months were prospectively recruited from the routine practice of two epileptologists at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Written informed consent and sera were obtained (Ethical approvals: Oxfordshire RECA 07/Q160X/28 and REC16/YH/0013). Clinical data gathered at onset (online supplemental table 1) included detailed phenotype and investigation results, Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score, Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE) and modified Rankin Score (mRS); as well as information to inform the Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy and Encephalopathy (APE2) score (online supplemental table 2)9 10 and diagnostic criteria for possible or definite AE.11 Subsequently, 1-year and 3-year mRS were ascertained from patients with NSAbs. Supplemental material For NSAbs, sera were tested against autoantigen-expressing live HEK293 cells (live cell-based assay; online supplemental table 3), and for reactivity with the surface of live cultured hippocampal neurons, using sensitive protocols.12 13 Autoantibodies to GAD65 were determined using a commercial radioimmunoprecipitation assay. Statistical analysis was conducted in R (V.3.6.1). Dimensionality reduction was performed using Multiple Factor Analysis in ‘FactoMineR’ with up to 10% missing data imputed using missForest. Stepwise Bayesian general linear modelling analysis was undertaken using ‘arm’. Wilson 95% CIs with continuity correction were calculated using ‘DescTools’. Results NSAb findings Of 241 recruited patients, 22 were excluded (online supplemental table 4). Of the remaining 219, median age was 49 years (range 16–91) and 109 (49.8%) were female. In 23/219 (10.5%) patients, serum NSAbs were detected across candidate and novel autoantigens (table 1) including roughly equal frequencies against leucine-rich glioma inactivated-1 (LGI1), contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2), plus the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and γ-aminobutyric acid A/B receptors (GABAAR and GABABR). An additional five patients had antibodies to the surface of live neurons, without an established autoantigen. Autoantibodies to contactin-2, the glycine receptor and the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptor (AMPAR) were each found in one patient. No dipeptidyl-peptidase-like protein 6 (DPPX) or high-titre GAD65 antibodies were detected. Overall, from the 23 people with NSAbs, 9 had a clinical diagnosis of AE (7/9 fulfilling published criteria).11 By contrast, none of the 196 without NSAbs had a clinical diagnosis of AE (p<0.0001; Fisher’s exact test). VIEW INLINE VIEW POPUP Table 1 Clinical and laboratory features of patients with epilepsy and positive neuronal surface autoantibodies Factors associated with the presence of NSAbs and AE Dimensionality reduction with multiple factor analysis showed that patients were highly heterogeneous and the modest clustering of those with NSAbs was largely driven by a clinical diagnosis of AE (figure 1A,B). Univariate analysis identified 11 clinical parameters that differed significantly between patients with and without NSAbs: age (p=0.04), ictal piloerection (p=0.02), lesional MRI (p=0.04), self-reported mood disturbance (p=0.007), ACE attention domain (p=0.01), ACE total score (p=0.04), QOLIE-31 score (p=0.02), self-reported neuropsychiatric features (p=0.03), epilepsy risk factors (p=0.05), inflammatory cerebrospinal fluid (CSF; p=0.004) and limbic system lesions on MRI (p=0.0002). A multivariate stepwise regression model allocated weighted scores to six of these: age ≥54 years=+1, self-reported mood disturbance=+1, limbic system lesions on MRI=+2, ictal piloerection=+2.5, ACE attention score ≥16=−1.5 and epilepsy risk factors=−1.5 (figure 1C). The probability of NSAb positivity increased with higher scores (Spearman’s ρ=0.99, p<0.0001; figure 1C) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis confirmed these features strongly predicted NSAb status (area under the curve (AUC)=0.83; total score ≥0; sensitivity=66.7%, specificity=84.9%; figure 1D). By contrast, the APE2 score performed less well in predicting NSAb status (sensitivity 43.5%, specificity 79.1%, AUC=0.68) and more accurately predicted criteria-defined AE, particularly if associated with NSAbs (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 78.8%, AUC=0.94; figure 1E). Figure 1 Clinical phenotypes associated with NSAb status in new-onset focal epilepsy. The first two dimensions are shown, highlighting: (A) NSAb-positive (red) or NSAb-negative (grey) status and (B) NSAb-positive (pale red) or NSAb-negative (grey) without encephalitis (dots), or NSAb-positive (dark red) with clinically diagnosed autoimmune encephalitis (triangles). (C) The proportion of patients by total model score. Error bars show 95% CIs. The inset shows the weighting and SE of each factor within the regression model. (D) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of the total model score for predicting NSAb status across all patients. (E) ROC curve of the APE2 score for predicting NSAb status across all patients (black), patients not meeting the criteria for autoimmune encephalitis (blue), patients meeting the criteria for autoimmune encephalitis (red) and predicting NSAb-positive criteria-confirmed autoimmune encephalitis across all patients. (F) Scatter plot of modified Rankin score in NSAb-positive patients by immunotherapy status over time (Mann-Whitney U test p values<0.05). AE, autoimmune encephalitis; APE2, Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy and Encephalopathy; epilepsy RF, epilepsy risk factors; MRI limbic Δ, changes within the limbic system on MRI. Comparisons of those with and without AE From 23 patients with NSAbs (table 1), a comparison of those with (n=9) and without (n=14) a clinical diagnosis of AE revealed several differences in the AE cohort: more ASMs (median of 3 vs 1; p=0.0073), more frequent immunotherapies (7/9 vs 0/14, p=0.0001), higher APE2 scores (median of 6 vs 2; p<0.0001), more frequent MRI limbic inflammation (6/9 vs 0/14; p=0.0008) and a trend towards greater positivity of serum IgGs targeting the surface of live neurons (7/9 vs 5/14, p=0.09). Compared with the seven patients administered immunotherapy, those with NSAbs who were not administered immunotherapy showed lower disability after 1 and 3 years (both p<0.05), and 11/16 (68.8%) were asymptomatic at 3-year follow-up (mRS=0 ; figure 1F). Hence, despite no immunotherapy, patients with NSAbs, but without AE, generally showed good outcomes. Discussion In this prospective study of 219 consecutive adults with new-onset focal epilepsy, NSAb status was best predicted by a combination of clinical parameters which closely resemble features observed in AE. Almost half of our patients with NSAbs were diagnosed with AE, and ~30% fulfilled stringent criteria for AE.11 Of those with NSAbs and more isolated forms of epilepsy, without individual features of AE, almost all were treated with ASMs alone and typically remained asymptomatic at long-term follow-up. Overall, these findings suggest that detection of NSAbs in patients with new-onset seizures, but without features of AE, should not alter current clinical management. Our observations should help guide the frequent clinical dilemma of which patients with new-onset seizures to test for autoantibodies and subsequently treat with immunotherapy. Taken together, our data suggest the clinical phenotype is paramount in guiding the relevance of autoantibody results, and provide data to address an outstanding question from a recent ILAE consensus statement.7 This ILAE statement also highlighted controversy over the term ‘autoimmune epilepsy’.7 In routine clinical practice, this nomenclature acts as a valuable signpost and aide memoire when seeing patients with seizures.2 14 However, ‘epilepsy’ carries several social stigmata and is defined by an enduring tendency to seizures. In AE, this lifelong risk is refuted by a recent study,4 despite several forms of AE commonly leading to hippocampal atrophy.2–4 7 10 The alternative concept of acute symptomatic seizures may more accurately capture the nature of seizures in patients with AE. Data-driven modifications to nomenclature will benefit from longer-term follow-up studies. Ictal piloerection, low mood and attention and MRI limbic system changes are recognised features of late-onset AE, particularly in association with LGI1 antibodies.2 4 14 15 The absence of movement disorders or more diffuse cognitive impairment as predictive factors in our model suggests the overall syndrome may reflect a formes frustes of AE. This contrasts with APE2 score parameters,9 which appear to largely reflect more florid features seen in classical AE. Our observational study has several limitations. These include limited CSF autoantibody measurements, which reflected UK practice particularly at the start of the study period. Yet,w ithout this valuable parameter, a diagnosis of NMDAR-antibody encephalitis is still possible.11 Yet, two of our four patients with serum NMDAR antibodies did not have features consistent with encephalitis, likely suggesting detection of clinically unrelated serum antibodies in these cases. In addition, our series in total only identified nine AE cases, although this may be considered substantial given the largely outpatient-based recruitment. This, and the high (~10%) seroprevalence rate, may reflect a referral bias given Oxford’s interest in AE, but is well aligned with other available estimates.6 9 10 Our serological data identified some samples with NSAbs proven by live cell-based assays, but without concomitant cell surface neuronal reactivities. This was especially evident in the cohort without a clinical diagnosis of AE, and perhaps these antibodies reflect low-affinity or low-titre autoantibodies which are not disease relevant. Their specificity, however, remains reassuring given their typical selectivity for just one of eight surface-expressed autoantigens. In the future, our prediction model will benefit from validation in independent, larger studies which may compare the risk of enduring seizures in the NSAb-positive versus NSAb-negative populations, with and without AE, something which we did not survey at follow-up. Hence, we cannot comment on long-term seizure status in the 5/16 patients (31%) who had NSAbs, no diagnosis of AE and 3-year mRS >0. In these patients, it remains possible that immunotherapy would have led to a greater benefit. However, in our view, this finding is more likely to be consistent with the predicted ~30% of all people with epilepsy who are known to become ASM resistant: this provides a testable hypothesis for a future randomised controlled trial. Overall, our observations support the concept that, in patients who present with new-onset focal seizures, clinical features which are consistent with a ‘mild encephalitis’ helps identify those with NSAbs which should alter patient management. This clinico-serological syndrome appeared characteristic and its recognition will improve detection and treatment of these patients. These findings should discourage widespread screening strategies to identify patients with autoantibodies among unselected seizure cohorts. References ↵Irani SR, Michell AW, Lang B, et al. Faciobrachial dystonic seizures precede Lgi1 antibody limbic encephalitis. Ann Neurol 2011;69:892–900.doi:10.1002/ana.22307 ↵Thompson J, Bi M, Murchison AG, et al. The importance of early immunotherapy in patients with faciobrachial dystonic seizures. Brain 2018;141:348–56.doi:10.1093/brain/awx323OpenUrlCrossRef ↵Geis C, Planagumà J, Carreño M, et al. Autoimmune seizures and epilepsy. J Clin Invest 2019;129:926–40.doi:10.1172/JCI125178OpenUrlPubMed ↵de Bruijn MAAM, van Sonderen A, van Coevorden-Hameete MH, et al. Evaluation of seizure treatment in anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, and anti-GABABR encephalitis. Neurology 2019;92:e2185–96.doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007475pmid:30979857OpenUrlPubMed ↵Scheffer IE, Berkovic S, Capovilla G, et al. ILAE classification of the epilepsies: position paper of the ILAE Commission for Classification and Terminology. Epilepsia 2017;58:512–21.doi:10.1111/epi.13709pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276062OpenUrlPubMed ↵Brenner T, Sills GJ, Hart Y, et al. Prevalence of neurologic autoantibodies in cohorts of patients with new and established epilepsy. Epilepsia 2013;54:1028–35.doi:10.1111/epi.12127pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23464826OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵Steriade C, Britton J, Dale RC, et al. Acute symptomatic seizures secondary to autoimmune encephalitis and autoimmune-associated epilepsy: conceptual definitions. Epilepsia 2020;61:1341–51.doi:10.1111/epi.16571pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32544279OpenUrlPubMed ↵von Podewils F, Suesse M, Geithner J, et al. Prevalence and outcome of late-onset seizures due to autoimmune etiology: a prospective observational population-based cohort study. Epilepsia 2017;58:1542–50.doi:10.1111/epi.13834pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28681401OpenUrlPubMed ↵Dubey D, Alqallaf A, Hays R, et al. Neurological autoantibody prevalence in epilepsy of unknown etiology. JAMA Neurol 2017;74:397–402.doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.5429pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166327OpenUrlPubMed ↵Dubey D, Kothapalli N, McKeon A, et al. Predictors of neural-specific autoantibodies and immunotherapy response in patients with cognitive dysfunction. J Neuroimmunol 2018;323:62–72.doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2018.07.009pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30196836OpenUrlPubMed ↵Graus F, Titulaer MJ, Balu R, et al. A clinical approach to diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. Lancet Neurol 2016;15:391–404.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00401-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26906964OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵Makuch M, Wilson R, Al-Diwani A, et al. N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor antibody production from germinal center reactions: therapeutic implications. Ann Neurol 2018;83:553–61.doi:10.1002/ana.25173pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29406578OpenUrlPubMed ↵Ramberger M, Berretta A, Tan JMM, et al. Distinctive binding properties of human monoclonal LGI1 autoantibodies determine pathogenic mechanisms. Brain 2020;143:1731–45.doi:10.1093/brain/awaa104pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32437528OpenUrlPubMed ↵Quek AML, Britton JW, McKeon A, et al. Autoimmune epilepsy: clinical characteristics and response to immunotherapy. Arch Neurol 2012;69:582–93.doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.2985pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22451162OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵Rocamora R, Becerra JL, Fossas P, et al. Pilomotor seizures: an autonomic semiology of limbic encephalitis? Seizure 2014;23:670–3.doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2014.04.013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24890932OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Sleep disorders in autoimmune encephalitis

Sleep disorders in autoimmune encephalitis | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Sleep disorders in people with autoimmune encephalitis have received little attention,
probably overshadowed by the presence of other neurological and psychiatric symptoms
in this group of conditions.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Cerebrospinal fluid CD20 positive B-cell expansion in a case of anti-NMDAR encephalitis - ScienceDirect

Cerebrospinal fluid CD20 positive B-cell expansion in a case of anti-NMDAR encephalitis - ScienceDirect | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) encephalitis is a potentially fatal autoimmune encephalitis with a strong B-cell response. We measured the …
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Clinical, cognitive and neuroanatomical associations of serum NMDAR autoantibodies in people at clinical high risk for psychosis

Clinical, cognitive and neuroanatomical associations of serum NMDAR autoantibodies in people at clinical high risk for psychosis | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Serum neuronal autoantibodies, such as those to the NMDA receptor (NMDAR), are detectable in a subgroup of patients with psychotic disorders. It is not known if they are present before the onset of psychosis or whether they are associated with particular clinical features or outcomes. In a case–control study, sera from 254 subjects at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis and 116 healthy volunteers were tested for antibodies against multiple neuronal antigens implicated in CNS autoimmune disorders, using fixed and live cell-based assays (CBAs). Within the CHR group, the relationship between NMDAR antibodies and symptoms, cognitive function and clinical outcomes over 24 month follow-up was examined. CHR subjects were not more frequently seropositive for neuronal autoantibodies than controls (8.3% vs. 5.2%; OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 0.58–3.90). The NMDAR was the most common target antigen and NMDAR IgGs were more sensitively detected with live versus fixed CBAs (p < 0.001). Preliminary phenotypic analyses revealed that within the CHR sample, the NMDAR antibody seropositive subjects had higher levels of current depression, performed worse on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task (p < 0.05), and had a markedly lower IQ (p < 0.01). NMDAR IgGs were not more frequent in subjects who later became psychotic than those who did not. NMDAR antibody serostatus and titre was associated with poorer levels of functioning at follow-up (p < 0.05) and the presence of a neuronal autoantibody was associated with larger amygdala volumes (p < 0.05). Altogether, these findings demonstrate that NMDAR autoantibodies are detectable in a subgroup of CHR subjects at equal rates to controls. In the CHR group, they are associated with affective psychopathology, impairments in verbal memory, and overall cognitive function: these findings are qualitatively and individually similar to core features of autoimmune encephalitis and/or animal models of NMDAR antibody-mediated CNS disease. Overall the current work supports further evaluation of NMDAR autoantibodies as a possible prognostic biomarker and aetiological factor in a subset of people already meeting CHR criteria.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

What the acute physician needs to know about Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: two case presentations. - The University of Liverpool Repository

What the acute physician needs to know about Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: two case presentations. - The University of Liverpool Repository | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
These case reports look at two patients with anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAr) encephalitis presenting to the same acute medical unit within a month of each other. The following covers the characteristic signs, symptoms and timeline associated with this condition and discusses whether we...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Clinical features which predict neuronal surface autoantibodies in new-onset focal epilepsy: implications for immunotherapies | Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Introduction Neuronal surface-directed antibodies (NSAbs) are considered pathogenic in patients with autoimmune encephalitis (AE). AE commonly presents with prominent seizures and neuropsychiatric features and shows a preferential response to immunotherapies versus anti-seizure medications (ASMs).1–4 This has prompted the introduction of ‘epilepsy of immune aetiology’ within the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) 2017 classification.5 The same NSAbs, as well as high levels of antibodies to intraneuronal glutamic acid decarboxylase-65 (GAD65), are also described in the serum of people with more isolated forms of epilepsy, without core features of encephalitis.6–8 In this context, their clinical, aetiological and therapeutic relevance is unclear, but of major potential importance to all neurologists who manage new-onset epilepsy. In our large, prospective, real-world study of new-onset focal epilepsy, we predicted that formes frustes of AE would help identify clinical features suggesting the presence of NSAbs and asked whether detection of these NSAbs should alter patient management. Materials and methods Between 9 December 2011 and 4 November 2015, consecutive adult patients (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of new-onset focal epilepsy and their first seizure within the previous 12 months were prospectively recruited from the routine practice of two epileptologists at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Written informed consent and sera were obtained (Ethical approvals: Oxfordshire RECA 07/Q160X/28 and REC16/YH/0013). Clinical data gathered at onset (online supplemental table 1) included detailed phenotype and investigation results, Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score, Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE) and modified Rankin Score (mRS); as well as information to inform the Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy and Encephalopathy (APE2) score (online supplemental table 2)9 10 and diagnostic criteria for possible or definite AE.11 Subsequently, 1-year and 3-year mRS were ascertained from patients with NSAbs. Supplemental material For NSAbs, sera were tested against autoantigen-expressing live HEK293 cells (live cell-based assay; online supplemental table 3), and for reactivity with the surface of live cultured hippocampal neurons, using sensitive protocols.12 13 Autoantibodies to GAD65 were determined using a commercial radioimmunoprecipitation assay. Statistical analysis was conducted in R (V.3.6.1). Dimensionality reduction was performed using Multiple Factor Analysis in ‘FactoMineR’ with up to 10% missing data imputed using missForest. Stepwise Bayesian general linear modelling analysis was undertaken using ‘arm’. Wilson 95% CIs with continuity correction were calculated using ‘DescTools’. Results NSAb findings Of 241 recruited patients, 22 were excluded (online supplemental table 4). Of the remaining 219, median age was 49 years (range 16–91) and 109 (49.8%) were female. In 23/219 (10.5%) patients, serum NSAbs were detected across candidate and novel autoantigens (table 1) including roughly equal frequencies against leucine-rich glioma inactivated-1 (LGI1), contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2), plus the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and γ-aminobutyric acid A/B receptors (GABAAR and GABABR). An additional five patients had antibodies to the surface of live neurons, without an established autoantigen. Autoantibodies to contactin-2, the glycine receptor and the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptor (AMPAR) were each found in one patient. No dipeptidyl-peptidase-like protein 6 (DPPX) or high-titre GAD65 antibodies were detected. Overall, from the 23 people with NSAbs, 9 had a clinical diagnosis of AE (7/9 fulfilling published criteria).11 By contrast, none of the 196 without NSAbs had a clinical diagnosis of AE (p<0.0001; Fisher’s exact test). VIEW INLINE VIEW POPUP Table 1 Clinical and laboratory features of patients with epilepsy and positive neuronal surface autoantibodies Factors associated with the presence of NSAbs and AE Dimensionality reduction with multiple factor analysis showed that patients were highly heterogeneous and the modest clustering of those with NSAbs was largely driven by a clinical diagnosis of AE (figure 1A,B). Univariate analysis identified 11 clinical parameters that differed significantly between patients with and without NSAbs: age (p=0.04), ictal piloerection (p=0.02), lesional MRI (p=0.04), self-reported mood disturbance (p=0.007), ACE attention domain (p=0.01), ACE total score (p=0.04), QOLIE-31 score (p=0.02), self-reported neuropsychiatric features (p=0.03), epilepsy risk factors (p=0.05), inflammatory cerebrospinal fluid (CSF; p=0.004) and limbic system lesions on MRI (p=0.0002). A multivariate stepwise regression model allocated weighted scores to six of these: age ≥54 years=+1, self-reported mood disturbance=+1, limbic system lesions on MRI=+2, ictal piloerection=+2.5, ACE attention score ≥16=−1.5 and epilepsy risk factors=−1.5 (figure 1C). The probability of NSAb positivity increased with higher scores (Spearman’s ρ=0.99, p<0.0001; figure 1C) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis confirmed these features strongly predicted NSAb status (area under the curve (AUC)=0.83; total score ≥0; sensitivity=66.7%, specificity=84.9%; figure 1D). By contrast, the APE2 score performed less well in predicting NSAb status (sensitivity 43.5%, specificity 79.1%, AUC=0.68) and more accurately predicted criteria-defined AE, particularly if associated with NSAbs (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 78.8%, AUC=0.94; figure 1E). Figure 1 Clinical phenotypes associated with NSAb status in new-onset focal epilepsy. The first two dimensions are shown, highlighting: (A) NSAb-positive (red) or NSAb-negative (grey) status and (B) NSAb-positive (pale red) or NSAb-negative (grey) without encephalitis (dots), or NSAb-positive (dark red) with clinically diagnosed autoimmune encephalitis (triangles). (C) The proportion of patients by total model score. Error bars show 95% CIs. The inset shows the weighting and SE of each factor within the regression model. (D) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of the total model score for predicting NSAb status across all patients. (E) ROC curve of the APE2 score for predicting NSAb status across all patients (black), patients not meeting the criteria for autoimmune encephalitis (blue), patients meeting the criteria for autoimmune encephalitis (red) and predicting NSAb-positive criteria-confirmed autoimmune encephalitis across all patients. (F) Scatter plot of modified Rankin score in NSAb-positive patients by immunotherapy status over time (Mann-Whitney U test p values<0.05). AE, autoimmune encephalitis; APE2, Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy and Encephalopathy; epilepsy RF, epilepsy risk factors; MRI limbic Δ, changes within the limbic system on MRI. Comparisons of those with and without AE From 23 patients with NSAbs (table 1), a comparison of those with (n=9) and without (n=14) a clinical diagnosis of AE revealed several differences in the AE cohort: more ASMs (median of 3 vs 1; p=0.0073), more frequent immunotherapies (7/9 vs 0/14, p=0.0001), higher APE2 scores (median of 6 vs 2; p<0.0001), more frequent MRI limbic inflammation (6/9 vs 0/14; p=0.0008) and a trend towards greater positivity of serum IgGs targeting the surface of live neurons (7/9 vs 5/14, p=0.09). Compared with the seven patients administered immunotherapy, those with NSAbs who were not administered immunotherapy showed lower disability after 1 and 3 years (both p<0.05), and 11/16 (68.8%) were asymptomatic at 3-year follow-up (mRS=0 ; figure 1F). Hence, despite no immunotherapy, patients with NSAbs, but without AE, generally showed good outcomes. Discussion In this prospective study of 219 consecutive adults with new-onset focal epilepsy, NSAb status was best predicted by a combination of clinical parameters which closely resemble features observed in AE. Almost half of our patients with NSAbs were diagnosed with AE, and ~30% fulfilled stringent criteria for AE.11 Of those with NSAbs and more isolated forms of epilepsy, without individual features of AE, almost all were treated with ASMs alone and typically remained asymptomatic at long-term follow-up. Overall, these findings suggest that detection of NSAbs in patients with new-onset seizures, but without features of AE, should not alter current clinical management. Our observations should help guide the frequent clinical dilemma of which patients with new-onset seizures to test for autoantibodies and subsequently treat with immunotherapy. Taken together, our data suggest the clinical phenotype is paramount in guiding the relevance of autoantibody results, and provide data to address an outstanding question from a recent ILAE consensus statement.7 This ILAE statement also highlighted controversy over the term ‘autoimmune epilepsy’.7 In routine clinical practice, this nomenclature acts as a valuable signpost and aide memoire when seeing patients with seizures.2 14 However, ‘epilepsy’ carries several social stigmata and is defined by an enduring tendency to seizures. In AE, this lifelong risk is refuted by a recent study,4 despite several forms of AE commonly leading to hippocampal atrophy.2–4 7 10 The alternative concept of acute symptomatic seizures may more accurately capture the nature of seizures in patients with AE. Data-driven modifications to nomenclature will benefit from longer-term follow-up studies. Ictal piloerection, low mood and attention and MRI limbic system changes are recognised features of late-onset AE, particularly in association with LGI1 antibodies.2 4 14 15 The absence of movement disorders or more diffuse cognitive impairment as predictive factors in our model suggests the overall syndrome may reflect a formes frustes of AE. This contrasts with APE2 score parameters,9 which appear to largely reflect more florid features seen in classical AE. Our observational study has several limitations. These include limited CSF autoantibody measurements, which reflected UK practice particularly at the start of the study period. Yet,w ithout this valuable parameter, a diagnosis of NMDAR-antibody encephalitis is still possible.11 Yet, two of our four patients with serum NMDAR antibodies did not have features consistent with encephalitis, likely suggesting detection of clinically unrelated serum antibodies in these cases. In addition, our series in total only identified nine AE cases, although this may be considered substantial given the largely outpatient-based recruitment. This, and the high (~10%) seroprevalence rate, may reflect a referral bias given Oxford’s interest in AE, but is well aligned with other available estimates.6 9 10 Our serological data identified some samples with NSAbs proven by live cell-based assays, but without concomitant cell surface neuronal reactivities. This was especially evident in the cohort without a clinical diagnosis of AE, and perhaps these antibodies reflect low-affinity or low-titre autoantibodies which are not disease relevant. Their specificity, however, remains reassuring given their typical selectivity for just one of eight surface-expressed autoantigens. In the future, our prediction model will benefit from validation in independent, larger studies which may compare the risk of enduring seizures in the NSAb-positive versus NSAb-negative populations, with and without AE, something which we did not survey at follow-up. Hence, we cannot comment on long-term seizure status in the 5/16 patients (31%) who had NSAbs, no diagnosis of AE and 3-year mRS >0. In these patients, it remains possible that immunotherapy would have led to a greater benefit. However, in our view, this finding is more likely to be consistent with the predicted ~30% of all people with epilepsy who are known to become ASM resistant: this provides a testable hypothesis for a future randomised controlled trial. Overall, our observations support the concept that, in patients who present with new-onset focal seizures, clinical features which are consistent with a ‘mild encephalitis’ helps identify those with NSAbs which should alter patient management. This clinico-serological syndrome appeared characteristic and its recognition will improve detection and treatment of these patients. These findings should discourage widespread screening strategies to identify patients with autoantibodies among unselected seizure cohorts. References ↵Irani SR, Michell AW, Lang B, et al. Faciobrachial dystonic seizures precede Lgi1 antibody limbic encephalitis. Ann Neurol 2011;69:892–900.doi:10.1002/ana.22307 ↵Thompson J, Bi M, Murchison AG, et al. The importance of early immunotherapy in patients with faciobrachial dystonic seizures. Brain 2018;141:348–56.doi:10.1093/brain/awx323OpenUrlCrossRef ↵Geis C, Planagumà J, Carreño M, et al. Autoimmune seizures and epilepsy. J Clin Invest 2019;129:926–40.doi:10.1172/JCI125178OpenUrlPubMed ↵de Bruijn MAAM, van Sonderen A, van Coevorden-Hameete MH, et al. Evaluation of seizure treatment in anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, and anti-GABABR encephalitis. Neurology 2019;92:e2185–96.doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007475pmid:30979857OpenUrlPubMed ↵Scheffer IE, Berkovic S, Capovilla G, et al. ILAE classification of the epilepsies: position paper of the ILAE Commission for Classification and Terminology. Epilepsia 2017;58:512–21.doi:10.1111/epi.13709pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276062OpenUrlPubMed ↵Brenner T, Sills GJ, Hart Y, et al. Prevalence of neurologic autoantibodies in cohorts of patients with new and established epilepsy. Epilepsia 2013;54:1028–35.doi:10.1111/epi.12127pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23464826OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵Steriade C, Britton J, Dale RC, et al. Acute symptomatic seizures secondary to autoimmune encephalitis and autoimmune-associated epilepsy: conceptual definitions. Epilepsia 2020;61:1341–51.doi:10.1111/epi.16571pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32544279OpenUrlPubMed ↵von Podewils F, Suesse M, Geithner J, et al. Prevalence and outcome of late-onset seizures due to autoimmune etiology: a prospective observational population-based cohort study. Epilepsia 2017;58:1542–50.doi:10.1111/epi.13834pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28681401OpenUrlPubMed ↵Dubey D, Alqallaf A, Hays R, et al. Neurological autoantibody prevalence in epilepsy of unknown etiology. JAMA Neurol 2017;74:397–402.doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.5429pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166327OpenUrlPubMed ↵Dubey D, Kothapalli N, McKeon A, et al. Predictors of neural-specific autoantibodies and immunotherapy response in patients with cognitive dysfunction. J Neuroimmunol 2018;323:62–72.doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2018.07.009pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30196836OpenUrlPubMed ↵Graus F, Titulaer MJ, Balu R, et al. A clinical approach to diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. Lancet Neurol 2016;15:391–404.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00401-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26906964OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵Makuch M, Wilson R, Al-Diwani A, et al. N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor antibody production from germinal center reactions: therapeutic implications. Ann Neurol 2018;83:553–61.doi:10.1002/ana.25173pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29406578OpenUrlPubMed ↵Ramberger M, Berretta A, Tan JMM, et al. Distinctive binding properties of human monoclonal LGI1 autoantibodies determine pathogenic mechanisms. Brain 2020;143:1731–45.doi:10.1093/brain/awaa104pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32437528OpenUrlPubMed ↵Quek AML, Britton JW, McKeon A, et al. Autoimmune epilepsy: clinical characteristics and response to immunotherapy. Arch Neurol 2012;69:582–93.doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.2985pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22451162OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵Rocamora R, Becerra JL, Fossas P, et al. Pilomotor seizures: an autonomic semiology of limbic encephalitis? Seizure 2014;23:670–3.doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2014.04.013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24890932OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Specialists and Care Centers for Autoimmune Encephalitis

Specialists and Care Centers for Autoimmune Encephalitis | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
The Northwestern Medicine Autoimmune Encephalitis and Paraneoplastic Disorders clinic takes a multidiscplinary approach to the diagnosis and care of patients affected by these disorders.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Neurologic Emergencies at the Extremes of Age

Neurologic Emergencies at the Extremes of Age | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
The diagnosis and management of neurologic conditions are more complex at the extremes
of age than in the average adult. In the pediatric population, neurologic emergencies
are somewhat rare and some may require emergent consultation.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

(PDF) Anti-N-methyl-D-Aspartate (NMDA) Receptor Encephalitis: A Case Report

(PDF) Anti-N-methyl-D-Aspartate (NMDA) Receptor Encephalitis: A Case Report | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
PDF | We report case of a 42 years old female who came with a constellation of behavioral symptoms, delirium, body stiffness, and fever for one week....| Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

RACGP - Old doc, new disease: Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis

RACGP - Old doc, new disease: Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Dr Casey Parker reflects on an intriguing presentation that made him ask: What else do I not know?
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Screening for Autoimmune Encephalitis in Patients With First-Episode Psychosis in the United States |J Clin Psychiatry

Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is a highly treatable neurologic condition that can cause psychosis. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of routine screening for AE compared with clinically targeted screening in first-episode psychosis patients.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Unremitting diarrhoea in a girl diagnosed anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor encephalitis: A case report | Read by QxMD

Unremitting diarrhoea in a girl diagnosed anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor encephalitis: A case report | Read by QxMD | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Create a free QxMD account to take advantage of the features offered by Read like saving your papers and creating collections. Get Started Unremitting diarrhoea in a girl diagnosed anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor encephalitis: A case report Norrapat Onpoaree, Montida Veeravigrom, Anapat Sanpavat, Narissara Suratannon, Palittiya Sintusek World Journal of Clinical Cases 2020 October 26, 8 (20): 4866-4875 BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in children; in contrast, in children with a weakened immune system, invasive CMV can occur. This is the first case report of a severe manifestation of CMV esophago-enterocolitis in a girl diagnosed with anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor (anti-NMDAR) encephalitis who received only a moderate dose of corticosteroid therapy. CASE SUMMARY: A 12-year-old-Thai girl presented with acute behavioural change and headache for 6 d. Electroencephalogram and positivity for NMDAR autoantibodies were compatible with anti-NMDAR encephalitis. Hence, she received pulse methylprednisolone 10 mg/kg per day for 4 d and continued with prednisolone 1.2 mg/kg per day. On day 42 of corticosteroid therapy, she developed unremitting vomiting and diarrhoea. Endoscopy showed multiple ulcers and erythaematous mucosa along the gastrointestinal tract. Tissue CMV viral load and viral-infected cells confirmed CMV esophago-enterocolitis. Therefore, the patient received ganciclovir 5 mg/kg per dose every 12 h for 3 wk and then 5 mg/kg per dose once daily for 3 wk. Unremitting diarrhoea slowly improved from stool output 1-4 L per day to 1-2 L per day after 3 wk of treatment. Pulse methylprednisolone 20 mg/kg for 5 d was initiated and continued with prednisolone 1 mg/kg per day. After this repeated pulse methylprednisolone treatment, surprisingly, diarrhoea subsided. Immunologic work-up was performed to rule out underlying immune deficiency with unremarkable results. CONCLUSION: Unremitting diarrhoea from CMV esophago-enterocolitis subsided with antiviral and methylprednisolone therapy, implying the immune and NMDAR dysregulation in anti-NMDAR encephalitis. Full Text Links We have located links that may give you full text access. Additional links Discussion You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion. Trending Papers Colchicine in Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease. Stefan M Nidorf, Aernoud T L Fiolet, Arend Mosterd, John W Eikelboom, Astrid Schut, Tjerk S J Opstal, Salem H K The, Xiao-Fang Xu, Mark A Ireland, Timo Lenderink, Donald Latchem, Pieter Hoogslag, Anastazia Jerzewski, Peter Nierop, Alan Whelan, Randall Hendriks, Henk Swart, Jeroen Schaap, Aaf F M Kuijper, Maarten W J van Hessen, Pradyot Saklani, Isabel Tan, Angus G Thompson, Allison Morton, Chris Judkins, Willem A Bax, Maurits Dirksen, Marco M W Alings, Graeme J Hankey, Charley A Budgeon, Jan G P Tijssen, Jan H Cornel, Peter L Thompson New England Journal of Medicine 2020 August 31 Extracorporeal life support for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Alain Combes, Matthieu Schmidt, Carol L Hodgson, Eddy Fan, Niall D Ferguson, John F Fraser, Samir Jaber, Antonio Pesenti, Marco Ranieri, Kathryn Rowan, Kiran Shekar, Arthur S Slutsky, Daniel Brodie Intensive Care Medicine 2020 November 2 Clinical strategies for implementing lung and diaphragm-protective ventilation: avoiding insufficient and excessive effort. Ewan C Goligher, Annemijn H Jonkman, Jose Dianti, Katerina Vaporidi, Jeremy R Beitler, Bhakti K Patel, Takeshi Yoshida, Samir Jaber, Martin Dres, Tommaso Mauri, Giacomo Bellani, Alexandre Demoule, Laurent Brochard, Leo Heunks Intensive Care Medicine 2020 November 2 Emergency Department Management of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based Approach. Nicholas M McManus, Ryan Offman, Jason D Oetman Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 2020 September 25 Glucocorticoids: surprising new findings on their mechanisms of actions. Frank Buttgereit Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2020 November 8 Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom. Claude Guérin, Richard K Albert, Jeremy Beitler, Luciano Gattinoni, Samir Jaber, John J Marini, Laveena Munshi, Laurent Papazian, Antonio Pesenti, Antoine Vieillard-Baron, Jordi Mancebo Intensive Care Medicine 2020 November 10 Severe organising pneumonia following COVID-19. István Vadász, Faeq Husain-Syed, Peter Dorfmüller, Fritz C Roller, Khodr Tello, Matthias Hecker, Rory E Morty, Stefan Gattenlöhner, Hans-Dieter Walmrath, Friedrich Grimminger, Susanne Herold, Werner Seeger Thorax 2020 November 11 Analgesia and sedation in patients with ARDS. Gerald Chanques, Jean-Michel Constantin, John W Devlin, E Wesley Ely, Gilles L Fraser, Céline Gélinas, Timothy D Girard, Claude Guérin, Matthieu Jabaudon, Samir Jaber, Sangeeta Mehta, Thomas Langer, Michael J Murray, Pratik Pandharipande, Bhakti Patel, Jean-François Payen, Kathleen Puntillo, Bram Rochwerg, Yahya Shehabi, Thomas Strøm, Hanne Tanghus Olsen, John P Kress Intensive Care Medicine 2020 November 10
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Possible coexistence of MOG-IgG-associated disease and anti-Caspr2 antibody-associated autoimmune encephalitis: a first case report

Possible coexistence of MOG-IgG-associated disease and anti-Caspr2 antibody-associated autoimmune encephalitis: a first case report | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease has been proposed as a separate inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS) since the discovery of pathogenic antibodies against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein ...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

The Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation Newsletter

The Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation Newsletter | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
On your Marks, Get Set, Register for the WORLD ENCEPHALITIS DAY CONFERENCE 2021 From...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Autoimmune encephalitis: When your body attacks your brain, and people think you’re going mad

Autoimmune encephalitis: When your body attacks your brain, and people think you’re going mad | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
Four PhD candidates from Monash University, who are already Doctors of the medical kind, are conducting research on a rare and debilitating neurological illness affecting the Australian population. It’s described as feeling like your brain is on fire.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Nesrin Shaheen
Scoop.it!

Characteristics of internalization of NMDA-type GluRs with antibodies to GluN1 and GluN2B - ScienceDirect

Characteristics of internalization of NMDA-type GluRs with antibodies to GluN1 and GluN2B - ScienceDirect | AntiNMDA | Scoop.it
To characterize internalization of NMDA-type glutamate receptors (GluRs) by antibodies to NMDA-type GluRs, we produced rabbit antibodies to N-terminal…
No comment yet.