| Literature DB >> 31650706 |
Zsófia Hayden1, Katalin Böröcz1, Zsuzsanna Csizmadia1, Péter Balogh1, Zoltán Kellermayer1, Kornélia Bodó1, József Najbauer1, Tímea Berki1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Autoantibody detection is crucial for the early diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) since prompt therapy can determine the disease outcome. Here, we report a single-center 6-year retrospective study of autoantibody testing in AIE in the Hungarian population.Entities:
Keywords: autoantibodies; autoimmune encephalitis; biochip; laboratory diagnostics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31650706 PMCID: PMC6908871 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Behav Impact factor: 2.708
Main characteristics of different autoimmune encephalitis types
| Autoantibody | Clinical features | MRI (T2/FLAIR) | Tumor | Prognosis | Male/Female | Median age (years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NMDAR |
Prodromal stage (fever, headache, abdominal pain) Psychiatric symptoms (agitation, hallucinations, delusions, catatonia, psychosis) Later manifestations (reduction of speech, memory deficit, orofacial and limb dyskinesias, seizures, decreased level of consciousness, autonomic instability) | Normal or nonspecific changes | 58%, (age‐ and sex‐dependent) in young women ovarian teratoma | 81% have a good outcome | 1:4 | 21 |
| LGI1 | Faciobrachial dystonic seizures, limbic encephalitis, hyponatremia, sleep disorders, memory, and cognitive deficits | Hyperintense signal in medial temporal lobes | ˂5%, thymoma | 70% have a good outcome | 2:1 | 64 |
| Caspr2 | Neuromyotonia, Morvan's syndrome, limbic encephalitis, insomnia, neuropathic pain | Hyperintense signal in medial temporal lobes | ˂5%, thymoma | 70% have a good outcome | 9:1 | 66 |
| GABABR |
Limbic encephalitis, seizures Rarely: cerebellar ataxia, opsoclonus‐myoclonus | Hyperintense signal in medial temporal lobes | 50%, SCLC | 80% initially good response but have poor prognosis due to SCLC | 1.5:1 | 61 |
| AMPAR |
Limbic encephalitis, seizures Rarely: psychiatric symptoms | Hyperintense signal in medial temporal lobes | 56%, SCLC, thymoma, or breast carcinoma | 70% have a good outcome | 1:2.3 | 56 |
Based on Dalmau and Graus (2018), Newman et al. ( 2016), van Sonderen et al. (2017).
Figure 1Annual distribution of autoimmune encephalitis test requests. The cell‐based indirect immunofluorescence BIOCHIP assay was introduced at our laboratory in 2012, and test results were analyzed through 2018. The number of positive tests varied in time, although the total number of requests increased each year. Data of 12 equivocal test results are not shown
Figure 2Annual distribution of the positively detected autoantibody types in autoimmune encephalitis patients. The ratio of autoantibody‐positive patients in decreasing order was NMDAR > LGI1 > GABABR > Caspr2. No patients were found with anti‐AMPAR1 or anti‐AMPAR2 autoantibody positivity
Figure 3Frequency and distribution of autoantibody types by age and sex in autoimmune encephalitis patients. The inserted table shows the number of patients belonging to the different AIE autoantibody types. Anti‐NMDAR autoantibodies were most frequently detected in young women, anti‐LGI1 autoantibodies occurred in middle‐aged males, anti‐GABABR autoantibodies were present in elderly males, and anti‐Caspr2 autoantibodies affected adult males
Groups of autoantibody‐positive patients with repeated test requests
| Patients | ID | Autoantibody type | Follow‐up time (years) | Number of test requests |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeatedly positive | 1. | NMDAR | 1 (2013) | 7 |
| 2. | 5 (2014–2018) | 3 | ||
| 3. | 2 (2013–2014) | 2 | ||
| 4. | 1 (2015) | 2 | ||
| 5. | 2 (2015–2016) | 2 | ||
| 6. | 1 (2012) | 2 | ||
| 7. | 1 (2012) | 2 | ||
| 8. | 4 (2012–2015) | 2 | ||
| 9. | 1 (2018) | 2 | ||
| 10. | 1 (2015) | 2 | ||
| 11. | 2 (2016–2017) | 2 | ||
| 12. | 1 (2015) | 2 | ||
| 13. | 1 (2015) | 2 | ||
| 14. | LGI1 | 3 (2013–2015) | 4 | |
| 15. | GABABR | 3 (2013–2015) | 3 | |
| 16. | 1 (2015) | 2 | ||
| 17. | 1 (2018) | 2 | ||
| Switched to negative | 1. | NMDAR | 5 (2012–2016) | 7 |
| 2. | 3 (2016–2018) | 4 | ||
| 3. | 2 (2012–2013) | 2 | ||
| 4. | 1 (2017) | 2 | ||
| 5. | 2 (2012–2013) | 2 | ||
| 6. | 2 (2012–2013) | 2 | ||
| 7. | 2 (2012–2013) | 2 | ||
| 8. | 3 (2012–2014) | 2 | ||
| 9. | LGI1 | 1 (2013) | 2 | |
| 10. | 1 (2018) | 2 | ||
| 11. | 3 (2013–2015) | 3 | ||
| 12. | LGI1 + Caspr2 | 1 (2018) | 3 | |
| 13. | GABABR | 1 (2015) | 2 |
Summary of test results of autoimmune encephalitis‐related autoantibodies in patients with serum and/or CSF positivity according to AIE subtypes
| Patient ID | Serum | CSF | Autoantibody subtype |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | + | NA | NMDAR |
| 2. | + | + | |
| 3. | + | NA | |
| 4. | NA | + | |
| 5. | + | NA | |
| 6. | + | NA | |
| 7. | + | NA | |
| 8. | + | NA | |
| 9. | + | NA | |
| 10. | + | NA | |
| 11. | + | + | |
| 12. | + | NA | |
| 13. | + | + | |
| 14. | + | NA | |
| 15. | + | NA | |
| 16. | + | NA | |
| 17. | + | + | |
| 18. | + | +++ | |
| 19. | + | NA | |
| 20. | − | + | |
| 21. | NA | + | |
| 22. | − | + | |
| 23. | + | +++ | |
| 24. | − | + | |
| 25. | + | NA | |
| 26. | +/− | + | |
| 27. | − | + | |
| 28. | + | NA | |
| 29. | − | + | |
| 30. | NA | + | |
| 31. | NA | +++ | |
| 32. | NA | + | |
| 33. | + | ++ | |
| 34. | + | NA | |
| 35. | ++ | NA | |
| 36. | NA | + | |
| 37. | + | − | |
| 38. | + | NA | |
| 39. | + | − | |
| 40. | − | ++ | |
| 41. | + | − | |
| 42. | ++ | NA | |
| 43. | + | − | LGI1 |
| 44. | + | NA | |
| 45. | + | NA | |
| 46. | + | NA | |
| 47. | ++ | NA | |
| 48. | + | − | |
| 49. | +++ | NA | |
| 50. | ++ | − | |
|
51. | + | + | LGI1 and Caspr2 |
| ++ | + | ||
| 52. | + | + | GABABR |
| 53. | + | + | |
| 54. | + | + | |
| 55. | + | NA | |
| 56. | ++ | NA | |
| 57. | ++ | + | |
| 58. | + | NA | GABABR and Caspr2 |
| + | NA | ||
| 59. | + | NA | Caspr2 |
| 60. | + | − |
Abbreviations: −, negative; +, low positive; +/−, equivocal; ++, positive; +++, strong positive; NA, not available.