Search

It remains elusive whether lesions and inflammation in the sub/juxtacortical white matter reflect cortical and/or meningeal pathologies. Elucidating this could have implications for MRI monitoring as sub/juxtacortical lesions are detectable by routine MRI, while cortical lesions and meningeal inflammation are not. By large‐area microscopy, we quantified total and mixed active plaque loads along with densities and sizes of perivascular mononuclear infiltrates (infiltrates) in the sub/juxtacortical white matter ≤2 mm from the cortex, intra‐cortically and in the meninges. Data were related to ante‐mortem clinical parameters in a false discovery rate‐corrected analysis. We compared 12 patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) and 15 with secondary progressive MS to 22 controls. Fifteen patients and 11 controls contributed with hemispheric sections. Sections were stained with haematoxylin–eosin, for myelin and for microglia/macrophages. B cells and T cells were confirmed in a subset. Immunoglobulin G depositions in selected cortical plaques resembled depositions described before in “slowly expanding” plaques in the white matter. We quantified plaque activity by measuring microglia‐dominated and macrophage‐dominated areas. Sub/juxtacortical plaques (load and activity) reflected plaque activity in the cerebral cortex. Plaque activity and infiltrates were more pronounced in the sub/juxtacortical white matter than in the cerebral cortex while conversely, the total plaque load was highest in the cortex. Infiltrates correlated trans‐cortically and sub/juxtacortical plaque activity reflected cortical and meningeal infiltrates. Sub/juxtacortical infiltrate sizes correlated with shorter survival after progression onset. Two patients with PPMS and putatively fatal brain stem lesions argue against incidental findings. Trans‐cortical inflammatory flares and plaque activity may be pathogenic in progressive MS. We suggest emphasis on sub/juxtacortical MRI lesions as plausible surrogates for cortical and meningeal pathologies and, when present, as indicators for cognitive testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Reliable detection of antibodies against nodal targets is vital for the diagnosis of autoimmune nodopathies. The performance characteristics of recently developed in-house assays are unknown. We compared testing at four centres., Methods: Each submitted 29-40 serum samples to a coordinating centre from one of three groups: (1) autoimmune nodopathy patients, with positive nodal/paranodal antibodies; (2) seronegative patients with other inflammatory neuropathies, and (3) healthy individuals or those with other neurological diseases. The coordinating centre recoded all samples and returned 160 identical aliquots to each testing centre for blinded testing. Once data from all centres had been received by the coordinating centre, unblinded results were returned for analysis. Sensitivity was defined by the proportion of group 1 samples returned as positive. Accuracy was defined as 0.075(sensitivity) + 0.925(specificity)., Results: Centres performed various combinations of ELISA, cell-based (CBAs) and teased-nerve fibre assays. All labs produced highly accurate results (96%-100%) and concordance for the overall result across at least 3 or all 4 test centres was observed for 98% and 89% of the samples respectively. However, 10/30 individual assays (6/14 CBAs and 4/16 ELISAs) were less than 90% sensitive. Only 3 assays had more than 1 false positive result (2 ELISAs and 1 CBA). Combining different assay modalities to produce an overall result did not improve accuracy. Inter-laboratory consistency in the determination of antibody subclasses was poor., Interpretation: Although most samples were correctly categorised in all 4 centres, the use of a specific test modality or multiple tests did not guarantee accuracy. Early and repeated interlaboratory testing with sharing of samples is important to understand test performance and reproducibility, identify areas for improvement and maintain consistency. To aid this, we provide detailed methods for the best performing tests. Further standardisation of antibody subclass determination is required., (© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Peripheral Nerve Society.)

Background and Objectives: Autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) and paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes (PNSs) encompass a heterogeneous group of antibody-associated disorders. Both the number of syndromes and commercially available antibody tests have increased considerably over the past decade. High-quality population-based data on epidemiology of these disorders and real-world performance of antibody tests are needed., Methods: In this nationwide retrospective cohort study, we identified all serum and CSF samples tested for antibodies against intracellular antigens (IAs: Hu [ANNA1], Yo [PCA1], CV2 [CRMP5], Ri [ANNA2], Ma1, Ma2 [Ta], amphiphysin, GAD65, GFAP, KLHL11, CARP VIII) or extracellular antigens (EAs: NMDAR, LGI1, Caspr2, GABA-B-R, GABA-A-R, AMPAR, DPPX, GlyR, mGluR1, VGCC, IgLON5, Tr [DNER]) between January 2016 and December 2021 in the Netherlands. Nationwide coverage was guaranteed for all antibodies except anti-GAD65 and anti-VGCC. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV); obtained clinical information about patients who tested positive; assigned diagnosis of AIE/PNS according to diagnostic criteria; and calculated incidence rates for IA, EA, and individual antibody-associated syndromes., Results: In the study period, 2,877 (9.5%) of 30,246 samples, belonging to 1,228 patients, tested positive. Sensitivity and specificity were high (>95%) to very high (>99%) for most tests in both serum and CSF. PPVs for several tests were moderate to poor, especially for serum testing of IA antibodies (25%-80%). Clinical data were available for 940 (76.5%) of 1,228 patients. A total of 578 AIE/PNS diagnoses were made. The incidence rate for AIE/PNS (per million person-years) increased from 4.70 (95% CI 3.72-5.85) in 2016 to 5.76 (4.69-7.00) in 2021. Overall, the incidence rate was 5.57 (5.13-6.05), 2.96 (2.64-3.31) for the EA and 2.61 (2.31-2.94) for the IA subgroup. The 4 most common AIE/PNS types were anti-NMDAR, anti-LGI1, anti-Hu, and anti-GAD65, together comprising almost two-thirds of all diagnoses (364/578, 63.0%)., Discussion: Most commercial antibody tests perform well overall, but important pitfalls remain. Although almost all tests had high specificity, PPV was only modest in the setting of these rare diseases and mass testing. We observe trends toward increasing incidence of antibody-associated AIE/PNS.

Background and Objectives: The clinical criteria for autoimmune encephalitis (AE) were proposed by Graus et al. in 2016. In this study, the AE criteria were validated in the real world, and common AE mimics were described. In addition, criteria for probable anti-LGI1 encephalitis were proposed and validated., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients referred to our national referral center with suspicion of AE and specific neuroinflammatory disorders with similar clinical presentations were included from July 2016 to December 2019. Exclusion criteria were pure cerebellar or peripheral nerve system disorders. All patients were evaluated according to the AE criteria., Results: In total, 239 patients were included (56% female; median age 42 years, range 1-85). AE was diagnosed in 104 patients (44%) and AE mimics in 109 patients (46%). The most common AE mimics and misdiagnoses were neuroinflammatory CNS disorders (26%), psychiatric disorders (19%), epilepsy with a noninflammatory cause (13%), CNS infections (7%), neurodegenerative diseases (7%), and CNS neoplasms (6%). Common confounding factors were mesiotemporal lesions on brain MRI (17%) and false-positive antibodies in serum (12%). Additional mesiotemporal features (involvement extralimbic structures, enhancement, diffusion restriction) were observed more frequently in AE mimics compared with AE (61% vs 24%; p = 0.005). AE criteria showed the following sensitivity and specificity: possible AE, 83% (95% CI 74-89) and 27% (95% CI 20-36); definite autoimmune limbic encephalitis (LE), 10% (95% CI 5-17) and 98% (95% CI 94-100); and probable anti-NMDAR encephalitis, 50% (95% CI 26-74) and 96% (95% CI 92-98), respectively. Specificity of the criteria for probable seronegative AE was 99% (95% CI 96-100). The newly proposed criteria for probable anti-LGI1 encephalitis showed a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 47-81) and specificity of 96% (95% CI 93-98)., Discussion: AE mimics occur frequently. Common pitfalls in AE misdiagnosis are mesiotemporal lesions (predominantly with atypical features) and false-positive serum antibodies. As expected, the specificity of the criteria for possible AE is low because these criteria represent the minimal requirements for entry in the diagnostic algorithm for AE. Criteria for probable AE (-LGI1, -NMDAR, seronegative) and definite autoimmune LE are applicable for decisions on immunotherapy in early disease stage, as specificity is high., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)

Background and Objectives: To describe the clinical features of anti-NMDAR encephalitis, emphasizing on late-onset patients and antibody test characteristics in serum and CSF., Methods: Nationwide observational Dutch cohort study, in patients diagnosed with anti-NMDAR encephalitis between 2007 and 2019., Results: One hundred twenty-six patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis were included with a median age of 24 years (range 1-86 years). The mean annual incidence was 1.00/million (95% CI 0.62-1.59). Patients ≥45 years of age at onset (19%) had fewer seizures (46% vs 71%, p = 0.021), fewer symptoms during disease course (3 vs 6 symptoms, p = 0.020), and more often undetectable serum antibodies compared with younger patients ( p = 0.031). In the late-onset group, outcome was worse, and all tumors were carcinomas (both p < 0.0001). CSF was more accurate than serum to detect anti-NMDAR encephalitis (sensitivity 99% vs 68%, p < 0.0001). Using cell-based assay (CBA), CSF provided an unconfirmed positive test result in 11/2,600 patients (0.4%); 6/11 had a neuroinflammatory disease (other than anti-NMDAR encephalitis). Patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis, who tested positive in CSF only, had lower CSF antibody titers ( p = 0.003), but appeared to have an equally severe disease course., Discussion: Anti-NMDAR encephalitis occurs at all ages and is less rare in the elderly patients than initially anticipated. In older patients, the clinical phenotype is less outspoken, has different tumor association, and a less favorable recovery. Detection of antibodies in CSF is the gold standard, and although the CBA has very good validity, it is not perfect. The clinical phenotype should be leading, and confirmation in a research laboratory is recommended, when in doubt., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)