Anna E M Bastiaansen1, Robin W van Steenhoven1, Marienke A A M de Bruijn1, Yvette S Crijnen1, Agnes van Sonderen1, Marleen H van Coevorden-Hameete1, Marieke M Nühn1, Marcel M Verbeek1, Marco W J Schreurs1, Peter A E Sillevis Smitt1, Juna M de Vries1, Frank Jan de Jong1, Maarten J Titulaer2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (A.E.M.B., R.W.v.S., Y.S.C., M.H.v.C.-H., P.A.E.S.S., J.M.d.V., M.J.T.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam; Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam (R.W.v.S.); Department of Neurology (M.A.A.M.d.B.), Elisabeth Tweesteden Medical Center, Tilburg; Department of Neurology (A.v.S.), Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague; Honours Student Bachelor Biomedical Sciences (M.M.N.), University Utrecht; Department of Neurology and Laboratory Medicine (M.M.V.), Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen; Department of Immunology (M.W.J.S.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam; and Alzheimer Center Erasmus MC (F.J.d.J.), Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. From the Department of Neurology (A.E.M.B., R.W.v.S., Y.S.C., M.H.v.C.-H., P.A.E.S.S., J.M.d.V., M.J.T.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam; Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam (R.W.v.S.); Department of Neurology (M.A.A.M.d.B.), Elisabeth Tweesteden Medical Center, Tilburg; Department of Neurology (A.v.S.), Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague; Honours Student Bachelor Biomedical Sciences (M.M.N.), University Utrecht; Department of Neurology and Laboratory Medicine (M.M.V.), Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen; Department of Immunology (M.W.J.S.), Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam; and Alzheimer Center Erasmus MC (F.J.d.J.), Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. m.titulaer@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) can resemble neurodegenerative dementia syndromes, and patients do not always present as encephalitis, this study evaluates how frequently AIE mimics dementia and provides red flags for AIE in middle-aged and older patients. METHODS: In this nationwide observational cohort study, patients with anti-leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1), anti-NMDA receptor (NMDAR), anti-gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor (GABABR), or anti-contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2) encephalitis were included. They had to meet 3 additional criteria: age ≥45 years, fulfillment of dementia criteria, and no prominent seizures early in the disease course (≤4 weeks). RESULTS: Two-hundred ninety patients had AIE, of whom 175 were 45 years or older. Sixty-seven patients (38%) fulfilled criteria for dementia without prominent seizures early in the disease course. Of them, 42 had anti-LGI1 (48%), 13 anti-NMDAR (52%), 8 anti-GABABR (22%), and 4 anti-CASPR2 (15%) encephalitis. Rapidly progressive cognitive deterioration was seen in 48 patients (76%), whereas a neurodegenerative dementia syndrome was suspected in half (n = 33). In 17 patients (27%; 16/17 anti-LGI1), subtle seizures had been overlooked. Sixteen patients (25%) had neither inflammatory changes on brain MRI nor CSF pleocytosis. At least 1 CSF biomarker, often requested when dementia was suspected, was abnormal in 27 of 44 tested patients (61%), whereas 8 had positive 14-3-3 results (19%). Most patients (84%) improved after immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Red flags for AIE in patients with suspected dementia are: (1) rapidly progressive cognitive decline, (2) subtle seizures, and (3) abnormalities in ancillary testing atypical for neurodegeneration. Physicians should be aware that inflammatory changes are not always present in AIE, and that biomarkers often requested when dementia was suspected (including 14-3-3) can show abnormal results. Diagnosis is essential as most patients profit from immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: As autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) can resemble neurodegenerative dementia syndromes, and patients do not always present as encephalitis, this study evaluates how frequently AIE mimics dementia and provides red flags for AIE in middle-aged and older patients. METHODS: In this nationwide observational cohort study, patients with anti-leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1), anti-NMDA receptor (NMDAR), anti-gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor (GABABR), or anti-contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2) encephalitis were included. They had to meet 3 additional criteria: age ≥45 years, fulfillment of dementia criteria, and no prominent seizures early in the disease course (≤4 weeks). RESULTS: Two-hundred ninety patients had AIE, of whom 175 were 45 years or older. Sixty-seven patients (38%) fulfilled criteria for dementia without prominent seizures early in the disease course. Of them, 42 had anti-LGI1 (48%), 13 anti-NMDAR (52%), 8 anti-GABABR (22%), and 4 anti-CASPR2 (15%) encephalitis. Rapidly progressive cognitive deterioration was seen in 48 patients (76%), whereas a neurodegenerative dementia syndrome was suspected in half (n = 33). In 17 patients (27%; 16/17 anti-LGI1), subtle seizures had been overlooked. Sixteen patients (25%) had neither inflammatory changes on brain MRI nor CSF pleocytosis. At least 1 CSF biomarker, often requested when dementia was suspected, was abnormal in 27 of 44 tested patients (61%), whereas 8 had positive 14-3-3 results (19%). Most patients (84%) improved after immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Red flags for AIE in patients with suspected dementia are: (1) rapidly progressive cognitive decline, (2) subtle seizures, and (3) abnormalities in ancillary testing atypical for neurodegeneration. Physicians should be aware that inflammatory changes are not always present in AIE, and that biomarkers often requested when dementia was suspected (including 14-3-3) can show abnormal results. Diagnosis is essential as most patients profit from immunotherapy.
Autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) comprises a group of antibody-mediated inflammatory brain
diseases. Binding of these antibodies to extracellular epitopes of neuronal structures
leads to cerebral dysfunction. Diagnostic criteria for AIE help to select patients for
antibody testing. These criteria are characterized by a subacute deterioration of
cognition, altered mental status, or psychiatric symptoms. These symptoms should be
accompanied by seizures, new findings of focal involvement of the CNS, or inflammatory
changes in the CSF (pleocytosis) or on brain MRI.[1] Anti–leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1),
anti–NMDA receptor (NMDAR), anti–gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor
(GABABR), or anti–contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2)
antibodies are the most common antibodies causing AIE, and cognition is frequently
affected in all these AIE subtypes.[2-5]Diagnosing AIE can be challenging because patients can present with less notable
encephalitis signs. The disease course can mimic neurodegenerative dementia syndromes.
Rapid progression is often expected, but slower progression has also been described,
resulting in misdiagnosis or treatment delay leading to a worse outcome.[5-10] It is unknown how often
AIE resembles dementia syndromes.[11,12] In patients presenting with a possible
dementia, clinical clues are essential for physicians to avoid misdiagnosis and
inadvertently withhold patients from immunotherapy.The study aim was to evaluate possible dementia diagnosis and to describe red flags for
AIE in middle-aged and older patients with anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, anti-CASPR2, and
anti-GABABR encephalitis.
Methods
Patients
We performed a nationwide observational cohort study in middle-aged and older
patients with anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, anti-GABABR, and anti-CASPR2
encephalitis. The Department of Neurology of the Erasmus University Medical
Center is the national referral site for patients with suspected AIE, and the
Laboratory of Medical Immunology is the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 15189-accredited national referral site for antineuronal
antibody testing. Patients were identified between August 1999 and September
2019, although 87% were identified after 2010. All Dutch patients with AIE with
anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, anti-GABABR, or anti-CASPR2 antibodies were
asked to participate.[3-5,13] Antibodies
were detected in serum, or in the CSF using validated commercial cell-based
assays (CBAs), and were confirmed with in-house CBA, immunohistochemistry, or
live hippocampal neurons as described before.[3,5,14,15] Only
patients who were 45 years or older at disease onset were included, as the main
challenge to discriminate between AIE and neurodegenerative dementia is within
this age group (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Patient Inclusion
In total, 290 patients with autoimmune encephalitis were identified. At
disease onset, 175 of the patients had an age of ≥45 years.
Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the dementia criteria including the
additional condition that no prominent seizures were present at early
disease course (≤4 weeks). *Percentage of the patients
≥45 years of age. AIE = autoimmune encephalitis; CASPR2
= contactin-associated protein-like 2; GABABR =
gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor; LGI1 = leucine-rich
glioma-inactivated 1; NMDAR = NMDA receptor.
Patient Inclusion
In total, 290 patients with autoimmune encephalitis were identified. At
disease onset, 175 of the patients had an age of ≥45 years.
Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the dementia criteria including the
additional condition that no prominent seizures were present at early
disease course (≤4 weeks). *Percentage of the patients
≥45 years of age. AIE = autoimmune encephalitis; CASPR2
= contactin-associated protein-like 2; GABABR =
gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor; LGI1 = leucine-rich
glioma-inactivated 1; NMDAR = NMDA receptor.In addition to the tests that were performed in the diagnostic workup, CSF
markers that often requested when dementia was suspected (total tau [t-tau],
phosphorylated tau-181 [p-tau], and 14-3-3) were determined in all patients with
sufficient available CSF (n = 12), in the ISO 15189-accredited laboratory
at the Radboud UMC.[16] Levels
of t-tau and p-tau were measured using ELISAs (Fujirebio, Ghent, Belgium). From
February 2019, a semiautomated version of the same ELISAs using Lumipulse
(Fujirebio, Ghent, Belgium) was used. 14-3-3 was analyzed using Western blotting
as previously described.[17]
Furthermore, patients with a positive 14-3-3 and sufficient available CSF were
post hoc tested for real‐time quaking-induced conversion
(RT-QuIC).[18] All
values were scored according to the reference values at the time of testing and
adjusted to current cutoff values in the figure for ease of comparison. Cutoff
values to be considered abnormal were t-tau > 400 pg/mL, p-tau > 64
pg/mL, amyloid-beta-42 (Aβ42) < 500 pg/mL, a t-tau/p-tau ratio >
30, and a t-tau/Aβ42 ratio > 0.52. A positive 14-3-3 or RT-QuIC was
also abnormal. Based on these CSF markers, patients had a Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease (CJD) profile if the t-tau/p-tau ratio was abnormal, and an Alzheimer
dementia (AD) profile was assigned when Aβ42 was lowered or the
t-tau/Aβ42 ratio was abnormal.[19]MRIs were reviewed at our site by neuroradiologists in most cases visiting our
center, whereas in patients with LGI1 antibodies MRIs were scored by an
independent neuroradiologist as published before.[3] In the remaining patients, radiographic outcomes
were based on the radiology reports.
Clinical Phenotype and Dementia Criteria
Clinical patient data were retrieved during a visit to our clinic in 48%, from
telephone interviews with patients or relatives in 31%, and from medical files
in 21%. The clinical disease course was assessed for fulfillment of the 2011
NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for dementia.[20] These internationally accepted core clinical criteria
can be used for the diagnosis of all-cause dementia. Dementia is diagnosed when
there are cognitive or behavioral symptoms that (1) interfere with the ability
to function at work or at usual activities; (2) represent a decline from
previous levels of functioning and performing; (3) are not explained by delirium
or major psychiatric disorder; (4) cognitive impairment is detected and
diagnosed through a combination of history-taking and a cognitive assessment;
and (5) the cognitive or behavioral impairment involves a minimum of 2 of the
following domains: (a) impaired ability to acquire and remember new information;
(b) impaired executive functions; (c) impaired visuospatial abilities; (d)
impaired language functions; and (e) changes in personality, behavior, or
comportment.[20] Rapidly
progressive dementia (RPD) was defined as fulfillment of the dementia criteria
within 12 months or death within 2 years after the appearance of the first
cognitive symptoms.[21]In addition, we excluded patients with prominent seizures early in the disease
course (≤4 weeks) because this is less likely in neurodegenerative
dementia syndromes, and physicians will already suspect inflammatory causes.
Subtle seizures that remained unnoticed by the treating physician were not
covered by these additional criteria.Level of functioning was measured with the modified Rankin scale (mRS),[22] and in most patients, we had
direct contact to obtain mRS scores. Cognitive domains were assessed by 2
persons independently reviewing all clinical charts, using neuropsychological
assessments, Mini-Mental State Examinations, and Montreal Cognitive Assessments
when available.
Statistics
Categorical data were compared using the Fisher-Freeman-Halton test. Continuous
data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance with log-transformation
because of skewed distribution (age at disease onset and delay until initiation
of treatment after disease onset) and the Kruskal-Wallis test (days between the
onset and start of seizures, days to cognitive decline after disease onset,
duration of follow-up, and mRS at follow-up). To assess multiple testing,
p values below 0.005 were considered significant. Values
between 0.05 and 0.005 should be interpreted carefully and considered
exploratory. Post hoc analysis to evaluate differences between antibody types
was assessed using the same statistical tests, corrected by the Holm method. We
used SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) for Windows for statistical analysis, as
well as Prism 8.4.3 (GraphPad, San Diego, CA).
Standard Protocol Approvals, Registrations, and Patient Consents
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Erasmus MC.
Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
Data Availability
Any data not published within this article are available at the Erasmus MC
University Medical Center. Patient-related data will be shared on reasonable
request from any qualified investigator, maintaining anonymization of the
individual patients.
Results
Patient Characteristics
In total, 290 patients with AIE were identified, of whom 95 patients harbored
LGI1 antibodies, 132 NMDAR antibodies, 37 GABABR antibodies, and 26
CASPR2 antibodies. At disease onset, 175 of the patients (60%) had an age of
≥45 years, including 88 LGI1 (93%), 25 NMDAR (19%), 36 GABABR
(97%), and 26 CASPR2 (100%) encephalitis patients. These patients were assessed
for fulfillment of the dementia criteria including the additional condition that
no prominent seizures were present at early disease course. Sixty-seven patients
fulfilled these criteria (39%): 42 LGI1 (48%), 13 NMDAR (52%), 8
GABABR (22%), and 4 CASPR2 (15%) encephalitis patients (Figure 1). Patients who had no very rapid
onset (only fulfilling dementia criteria beyond 3 months) and had neither MRI
abnormalities nor CSF pleocytosis were highlighted in eFigure 1 and eTable 1
(links.lww.com/NXI/A535), as these pose the largest challenge. The
patients with CASPR2 encephalitis were excluded from statistical analysis
(because of the small number) and described exploratively in the supplementary
text.Of the remaining 63 patients with anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, and
anti-GABABR encephalitis, 37 were male (58%; Table 1). In anti-LGI1 encephalitis, there
was a trend toward a male predominance compared with the higher frequency of
females in anti-NMDAR encephalitis (puncorrected
= 0.047). The median age at onset was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR]
58–72, range 48–85).
Table 1
Patient Characteristics
Patient CharacteristicsAlmost all patients had cognitive deterioration (n = 62, 98%) and behavioral
changes (n = 55, 87%).Cognitive decline was the presenting symptom in most patients (n = 48, 76%;
median time to cognitive decline 0 days). There was a rapidly progressive
deterioration of cognitive symptoms in 48 patients (76%), and 5 patients were
admitted to a closed psychogeriatric ward. In half of the patients (n = 33,
52%), a neurodegenerative dementia syndrome was suspected by the treating
physician.Cognitive domains were affected differently in the various AIE subtypes (Figure 2). Patients with anti-LGI1 or
anti-GABABR encephalitis had similarities with more prominent and
more frequently severe impairment of visuospatial and executive functions
(∼70% in LGI1 and 55% in GABABR encephalitis). By contrast,
patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis more frequently had impaired language
functions (85%, p < 0.0001), and behavioral changes were
more prominent.
Figure 2
Cognitive Domains in Autoimmune Encephalitis
For patients with anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, and anti-GABABR
encephalitis, cognitive symptoms were divided into 5 cognitive domains.
The domains for memory and behavior were divided into 4 categories (not
present, mildly present, present, and prominent), and the speech,
visuospatial, and executive domains were divided into 3 categories (not
present, present, and prominent). ***p
< 0.0001 and **p = 0.001 between
anti-NMDAR and, respectively, anti-LGI1 and anti-GABABR.
GABABR = gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor; LGI1
= leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1; NMDAR = NMDA
receptor.
Cognitive Domains in Autoimmune Encephalitis
For patients with anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, and anti-GABABR
encephalitis, cognitive symptoms were divided into 5 cognitive domains.
The domains for memory and behavior were divided into 4 categories (not
present, mildly present, present, and prominent), and the speech,
visuospatial, and executive domains were divided into 3 categories (not
present, present, and prominent). ***p
< 0.0001 and **p = 0.001 between
anti-NMDAR and, respectively, anti-LGI1 and anti-GABABR.
GABABR = gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor; LGI1
= leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1; NMDAR = NMDA
receptor.Sleep-related problems were most frequent in anti-LGI1 encephalitis (57%,
p = 0.004). In anti-NMDAR encephalitis, patients
experienced, besides the speech problems, more movement disorders (46%,
puncorrected = 0.009; eTable 1 and eTable 2, links.lww.com/NXI/A535).There were no prominent seizures early (≤4 weeks) in the disease course
(exclusion criterion). If prominent seizures were present, these occurred after
a median of 3 months (IQR 42–181 days). However, 40 patients (64%)
developed seizures during the course of the disease. Looking scrutinously,
actually 11 of 40 patients with seizures (28%) had developed subtle seizures
within 2 weeks after disease onset. However, in all patients, these were
initially missed faciobrachial dystonic seizures (FBDS) or nonmotor subtle focal
seizures. In total, subtle seizures were overlooked in a quarter of the patients
(n = 17). Most subtle seizures were seen in anti-LGI1 encephalitis (n
= 16) compared with the other AIE subtypes
(puncorrected = 0.011).
Ancillary Testing
Ancillary testing showed normal routine CSF results (white blood cell count,
total protein, and, if performed, immunoglobulin (Ig) G index and oligoclonal
bands) and no abnormalities related to AIE (hyperintensities of the mesial
temporal lobe) on MRI T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery in half of the
patients (53% and 54%, respectively). In 16 of 61 patients (25%), neither CSF
pleocytosis nor MRI inflammatory changes were found. In anti-LGI1, CSF was even
more frequently normal (76%, p < 0.0001). In all patients,
atrophy was rarely seen on initial MRI (n = 4), and no abnormalities on
diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were reported. EEG showed epileptic discharges
in 13 patients (23%), and in 25 patients (45%), the EEG was normal, similar
between AIE subtypes. Tumor screening resulted in malignancies in 10 patients
(17%), and as expected, in patients with GABABR antibodies, this was
most frequent (57%; p = 0.004). Only 2 patients underwent
18fluorodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET) of the brain: one showed
hypometabolism in the right caudate area, whereas the other was normal.CSF biomarkers (t-tau, p-tau, and Aβ42) were tested in 44 patients
(Aβ42 only in 29; Figure 3). A high
t-tau was seen in 19 patients (45%), a high p-tau in 6 patients (16%), and a low
Aβ42 in 12 patients (41%). A high t-tau/p-tau ratio (>30; suggestive
for CJD) was present in 6 of 38 patients (16%), and 14-3-3 was (weakly) positive
in 8 of 42 patients (19%). Five patients with a positive 14-3-3 had been tested
by RT-QuIC, and all tested negative. In anti-GABABR encephalitis, the
14-3-3 test was most often found positive, but this was not significantly
different compared with other AIE subtypes. The clinical profile of the patients
with AIE with a high t-tau or high t-tau/Aβ42 is shown in eTable 3
(links.lww.com/NXI/A535). Based on these CSF markers that are often
requested when dementia was suspected, 14 patients were considered to have a CSF
profile suitable for Alzheimer disease or CJD.
Figure 3
Dementia Biomarkers in Patients With Autoimmune Encephalitis
Dementia CSF biomarkers in 44 patients with autoimmune encephalitis
cutoff values to be considered abnormal were (A) t-tau > 400 pg/mL,
(B) p-tau > 64 pg/mL, (C) a t-tau/p-tau ratio of >30, (D)
Aβ42 < 500 pg/mL, and (E) a t-tau/Aβ42 ratio of
>0.52. (F) A positive 14-3-3 is abnormal. Two patients with t-tau
values of 14,720 and 2,800 were maximized at 2001. Five patients with a
positive 14-3-3 had been tested by RT-QuIC, all negative. Filled diamond
symbols represent abnormal results, and half-filled symbols represent
normal results. Aβ42 = amyloid-beta-42; CASPR2 =
contactin-associated protein-like 2; GABABR =
gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor; LGI1 = leucine-rich
glioma-inactivated 1; NMDAR = NMDA receptor; p-tau =
phosphorylated tau; RT-QuIC = real‐time quaking-induced
conversion; t-tau = total tau.
Dementia Biomarkers in Patients With Autoimmune Encephalitis
Dementia CSF biomarkers in 44 patients with autoimmune encephalitis
cutoff values to be considered abnormal were (A) t-tau > 400 pg/mL,
(B) p-tau > 64 pg/mL, (C) a t-tau/p-tau ratio of >30, (D)
Aβ42 < 500 pg/mL, and (E) a t-tau/Aβ42 ratio of
>0.52. (F) A positive 14-3-3 is abnormal. Two patients with t-tau
values of 14,720 and 2,800 were maximized at 2001. Five patients with a
positive 14-3-3 had been tested by RT-QuIC, all negative. Filled diamond
symbols represent abnormal results, and half-filled symbols represent
normal results. Aβ42 = amyloid-beta-42; CASPR2 =
contactin-associated protein-like 2; GABABR =
gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor; LGI1 = leucine-rich
glioma-inactivated 1; NMDAR = NMDA receptor; p-tau =
phosphorylated tau; RT-QuIC = real‐time quaking-induced
conversion; t-tau = total tau.We could not identify significant differences between patients with and without
RPD, except for the obvious time to dementia (data not shown).
Treatment and Outcome
The median mRS at onset was 3 (IQR 3–4; 3% activity of daily living [ADL]
independent), and patients were admitted to the ICU in 16% of the total cohort
(Table 2). Most patients (n =
59, 94%) were treated with first-line immunotherapy (combination of IV
methylprednisolone or IVIgs). Nine patients (14%) received additional
second-line immunotherapy (rituximab or cyclophosphamide). In 4 of 8 patients
with anti-GABABR encephalitis, no immunotherapy was administered. Two
of these patients received chemotherapy for small cell lung carcinoma, and the
remaining 2 were postmortem diagnosed as anti-GABABR encephalitis. In
patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis, second-line immunotherapy was
administered more frequently (39%, p = 0.005).
Table 2
Treatment and Outcome
Treatment and OutcomeThe median delay until initiation of treatment after disease onset was 99 days
(IQR 32–219).To analyze the effects of treatment delay, without interference of the antibody
subtype, we assessed treatment in the largest AIE subtype (anti-LGI
encephalitis). Patients with a longer delay until the start of immunotherapy
after disease onset (>60 days, n = 28/41) had a higher mRS at 6 and 12
months (mRS 3 [IQR 2–3] vs mRS 2 [IQR 1–2], p
= 0.012; and mRS 2 [IQR 2–3] vs mRS 1 [IQR 1–2],
p = 0.027, respectively). Similarly, more cognitive
problems remained after 6 months in those treated later (96% vs 67%,
p = 0.02), whereas a similar trend was seen at 12
months of follow-up (92% vs 67%, p = 0.10).Patients improved after therapy indicated by a lower mRS score after treatment
(median mRS 2; 67% ADL independent). Only in anti-GABABR
encephalitis, patients tended to remain dependent more frequently, whereas in
the other AIE subtypes the majority became independent
(puncorrected = 0.019). Cognitive deficits
were still present after 12 months in most patients (81%) and were similar
between AIE subtypes. In total, encephalitis relapses were seen in 11 patients
(17%), and 14 patients had died (22%).
Discussion
This nationwide observational cohort study evaluated cognitive characteristics in
middle-aged or older patients with anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, anti-GABABR,
and anti-CASPR2 encephalitis. We show that AIE can resemble dementia frequently,
especially as RPD. Ancillary testing can be misleading, lacking an inflammatory
signature (in the CSF or on brain MRI), whereas the CSF biomarker profile that is
often requested for dementia workup might mimic a neurodegenerative syndrome.
Seizures are often present both early and late in the disease course. These can be
very subtle and therefore easily overlooked.Our study shows that a neurodegenerative dementia syndrome is frequently suspected
initially in patients with AIE. The cognitive deterioration has a rapidly
progressive character in most patients, which is much larger than the prevalence of
RPD in reported studies of dementia cohorts (4%–30%).[23-25] Literature on pure
cognitive decline in patients with antineuronal autoantibodies is sparse,[26,27] and in our experience, many patients with RPD are not
investigated for neuronal autoantibodies. Our results emphasize that part of the
(older) patients with a possible dementia diagnosis should be tested for
extracellular neuronal antibodies. In all AIE subtypes, we identified patients with
cognitive deterioration fulfilling the criteria for dementia. Encephalitis with
anti-LGI1 antibodies is the most common subtype in this age category, and the
clinical picture mimics dementia most often. Fewer patients with anti-NMDAR
encephalitis were included in this study, as this disease predominantly affects
young adults.[28] Patients with
anti-GABABR encephalitis are characterized by severe seizures in
many[29] but can present as
RPD.[5] Most patients with
anti-CASPR2 encephalitis had other symptoms, such as (painful) polyneuropathy,
cerebellar dysfunction, or epilepsy.[4] Anti-IgLON5 encephalopathy has broad clinical phenotypes,
including manifestations that can resemble dementia,[30] but as this disease is still evolving, we have not
included these patients. Anti-AMPAR can occasionally present with cognitive decline
without other symptoms but is very rare.[31] Similarly, a recent publication also showed the even rarer
AK5 antibodies to be associated frequently with cognitive decline, although MRI and
CSF testing was very abnormal in almost all.[32]Seizures are generally better known within AIE and less likely in dementia, although
10%–22% of early-onset AD patients develop seizures in all disease
stages.[33] Our study shows
that a high percentage (∼two-third of the cohort) developed seizures, despite
(arbitrarily) excluding patients with prominent seizures within the first 4 weeks.
The seizures within this study appeared late in the disease course or were subtle
seizures (FBDS or nonmotor subtle focal seizures), often overlooked. Altogether, it
indicates that seizures are an important red flag differentiating between a possible
AIE when patients present with dementia symptoms. There should be more awareness for
FBDS and nonmotor focal seizures because missing leads to a delay, incorrect
diagnosis, and more important inadvertently withholding of immunotherapy resulting
in worse outcomes,[3,6] also seen in our cohort. These subtle seizures were
almost exclusively seen in anti-LGI1 encephalitis. FBDS, 1 subtype, are known to be
pathognomonic for anti-LGI1 encephalitis and are defined as frequent attacks
(>8 per day) lasting less than 30 seconds with a dystonic posture of the arm,
often combined with a facial contraction.[34]Frequently, ancillary testing showed no clues suggesting an autoimmune etiology: no
abnormalities in the CSF (e.g., pleocytosis) or no typical mesiotemporal
hyperintensities on brain MRI, consistent with previous studies.[1,26,35] Patients with
LGI1 or CASPR2 antibodies had more frequently normal CSF results, also in line with
previous studies.[4,36] In addition, EEG results were normal or only
showing some encephalopathy in many patients with AIE, similar to patterns seen in
patients with neurodegenerative dementia. Noteworthy, regular ictal EEG generally
shows no abnormalities during FBDS. Similarly, EEG is unrevealing if patients have
an epileptic focus deep in the temporal lobe.[37,38] Finally, tumors
can be present in AIE, but in general, patients are only screened for tumors after
antibody positivity. Therefore, in clinical practice, this rarely points toward an
autoimmune etiology in patients with cognitive deterioration. Differentiating
between AIE and a neurodegenerative cause becomes more complex when CSF markers that
are often requested when dementia is suspected are abnormal. In almost half of our
tested AIE patients (in whom Aβ42 was also tested), the combination of
biomarkers was fitting a neurodegenerative dementia profile. Few cases had positive
14-3-3 results, sometimes attributed to CJD, but none had abnormalities on MRI-DWI.
Unfortunately, we did not have data to evaluate the discriminatory value of FDG-PET.
A selection of the 14-3-3 positive samples was analyzed by RT-QuIC, considered a
more specific marker for CJD, and all had negative test results confirming the
higher specificity compared with 14-3-3.[39] Some of the CSF markers are known to be not highly specific
for dementia (t-tau and 14-3-3), as these represent neuronal injury. The explanation
for abnormal Aβ42 is currently unknown. Although we cannot exclude that
patients were developing concomitant AD, the improvement to immunotherapy and lack
of cognitive deterioration over time, despite extended follow-up, make this highly
improbable. Overall, physicians should be aware that ancillary testing can be
deceivingly normal in many cases, and dementia biomarkers can be
“falsely” positive. IgG index and oligoclonal bands in the CSF can be
helpful and should be routinely tested to investigate an autoimmune etiology.The dementia syndrome shows distinctive cognitive profiles in different AIE subtypes.
Both anti-LGI1 and anti-GABABR encephalitis are associated with
visuospatial and executive dysfunction. This is consistent with cognitive
dysfunction seen in dementia with Lewy bodies,[40] and the regularly accompanied hallucinations and sleep
problems are also known in AIE. Anti-NMDAR encephalitis is more reminiscent of
frontotemporal dementia because language impairments and behavioral problems are
more prominent in both diseases.[41,42] Contrary to neurodegenerative
dementia syndromes, patients with AIE can be treated and generally respond well to
immunotherapy. In this study looking at elderly patients with AIE, in which most
were initially suspected of having an untreatable dementia syndrome, many patients
improved with immunotherapy. This improvement was seen despite the relatively long
delay until treatment (median 99 days). This delay is witness to the difficulties in
diagnosing AIE in older patients, as shown for anti-NMDAR encephalitis.[8] Nevertheless, patients became
independent in their daily activities again (best mRS after treatment ≤2).
However, better treatments and targeted guidance are necessary to reduce
long-lasting cognitive dysfunction because a high percentage of patients in all
subtypes of AIE still experience problems 1 year after disease onset. Research
evaluating neuropsychological assessments is still sparse.[3,13,43] In patients with anti-LGI1
encephalitis, long-term cognitive deficits were attributed to hippocampal
damage[43] and to reduced
connectivity in anti-NMDAR encephalitis,[44] but direct links with poorer cognitive recovery are
needed.Although this study is nationwide, including 4 types of AIE, there are some
limitations associated with the retrospective design of this study. First, detailed
cognitive symptoms were not always accurately documented, especially during
follow-up. Second, because of the low incidence of anti-GABABR and
anti-CASPR2 encephalitis and because of our restrictive selection criteria (mainly
for anti-NMDAR and anti-CASPR2 encephalitis), we describe modest group sizes,
especially compared with anti-LGI1 encephalitis. A large study examining antibodies
in unselected patients with presumed dementia, without suspicion of autoimmunity, as
well as patients with RPD would be most useful to consolidate our findings.In conclusion, AIE can mimic dementia. Antibody testing should be considered more
often and sooner in the disease course, especially if red flags are present. Red
flags for AIE in patients aged 45 years or older are a rapidly progressive cognitive
decline, abnormalities in ancillary testing (inflammatory changes in the CSF or on
MRI), easily missed subtle seizures early in the disease course, and prominent
seizures later in the disease. Extensive brain atrophy early in the disease course
argues in favor of neurodegeneration, whereas abnormalities on MRI-DWI are more
suggestive for CJD in patients with RPD. CSF markers that are often requested when
dementia is suspected (including t-tau, p-tau, Aβ42, and 14-3-3) can be
positive in AIE. However, physicians should be aware that ancillary testing of the
CSF and brain MRI can be entirely normal in AIE, necessitating antibody testing when
in doubt.
Authors: Annette Baumgartner; Sebastian Rauer; Tilman Hottenrott; Frank Leypoldt; Friederike Ufer; Harald Hegen; Harald Prüss; Jan Lewerenz; Florian Deisenhammer; Oliver Stich Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Josep Dalmau; Amy J Gleichman; Ethan G Hughes; Jeffrey E Rossi; Xiaoyu Peng; Meizan Lai; Scott K Dessain; Myrna R Rosenfeld; Rita Balice-Gordon; David R Lynch Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-10-11 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Katya Rascovsky; John R Hodges; David Knopman; Mario F Mendez; Joel H Kramer; John Neuhaus; John C van Swieten; Harro Seelaar; Elise G P Dopper; Chiadi U Onyike; Argye E Hillis; Keith A Josephs; Bradley F Boeve; Andrew Kertesz; William W Seeley; Katherine P Rankin; Julene K Johnson; Maria-Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Howard Rosen; Caroline E Prioleau-Latham; Albert Lee; Christopher M Kipps; Patricia Lillo; Olivier Piguet; Jonathan D Rohrer; Martin N Rossor; Jason D Warren; Nick C Fox; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon; Sandra E Black; Marsel Mesulam; Sandra Weintraub; Brad C Dickerson; Janine Diehl-Schmid; Florence Pasquier; Vincent Deramecourt; Florence Lebert; Yolande Pijnenburg; Tiffany W Chow; Facundo Manes; Jordan Grafman; Stefano F Cappa; Morris Freedman; Murray Grossman; Bruce L Miller Journal: Brain Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Ian G McKeith; Bradley F Boeve; Dennis W Dickson; Glenda Halliday; John-Paul Taylor; Daniel Weintraub; Dag Aarsland; James Galvin; Johannes Attems; Clive G Ballard; Ashley Bayston; Thomas G Beach; Frédéric Blanc; Nicolaas Bohnen; Laura Bonanni; Jose Bras; Patrik Brundin; David Burn; Alice Chen-Plotkin; John E Duda; Omar El-Agnaf; Howard Feldman; Tanis J Ferman; Dominic Ffytche; Hiroshige Fujishiro; Douglas Galasko; Jennifer G Goldman; Stephen N Gomperts; Neill R Graff-Radford; Lawrence S Honig; Alex Iranzo; Kejal Kantarci; Daniel Kaufer; Walter Kukull; Virginia M Y Lee; James B Leverenz; Simon Lewis; Carol Lippa; Angela Lunde; Mario Masellis; Eliezer Masliah; Pamela McLean; Brit Mollenhauer; Thomas J Montine; Emilio Moreno; Etsuro Mori; Melissa Murray; John T O'Brien; Sotoshi Orimo; Ronald B Postuma; Shankar Ramaswamy; Owen A Ross; David P Salmon; Andrew Singleton; Angela Taylor; Alan Thomas; Pietro Tiraboschi; Jon B Toledo; John Q Trojanowski; Debby Tsuang; Zuzana Walker; Masahito Yamada; Kenji Kosaka Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lynne I McGuire; Alexander H Peden; Christina D Orrú; Jason M Wilham; Nigel E Appleford; Gary Mallinson; Mary Andrews; Mark W Head; Byron Caughey; Robert G Will; Richard S G Knight; Alison J E Green Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Chi Wang Ip; Jens Volkmann; Maximilian Friedrich; Johannes Hartig; Harald Prüss Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 4.511