Search

IntroductionMultiple sclerosis is an inflammatory and demyelinating disease caused by a pathogenic immune response against the myelin sheath surfaces of oligodendrocytes. The demyelination has been classically associated with pathogenic B cells residing in the central nervous system that release autoreactive antibodies against myelin. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether extracellular vesicles (EVs) mediate delivery of myelin autoreactive antibodies from peripheral B cells against oligodendrocytes in multiple sclerosis (MS) and to analyze whether these EVs could mediate demyelination in vitro. We also studied the role of these EV-derived myelin antibodies as a diagnostic biomarker in MS.MethodsThis is a prospective, observational, and single-center study that includes patients with MS and two control groups: patients with non-immune white matter lesions and healthy controls. We isolated B-cell-derived EVs from the blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and analyzed their myelin antibody content. We also studied whether antibody-loaded EVs reach oligodendrocytes in patients with MS and the effect on demyelination of B-cell-derived EVs containing antibodies in vitro.ResultsThis study enrolled 136 MS patients, 23 white matter lesions controls, and 39 healthy controls. We found autoreactive myelin antibodies in EVs that were released by peripheral B cells, but not by populations of B cells resident in CSF. We also identified a cut-off of 3.95 ng/mL of myelin basic protein autoantibodies in EVs from peripheral B cells, with 95.2% sensitivity and 88.2% specificity, which allows us to differentiate MS patients from healthy controls. EV-derived myelin antibodies were also detected in the oligodendrocytes of MS patients. Myelin antibody-loaded EVs from B cells induced myelin markers decrease of oligodendrocytes in vitro.DiscussionPeripheral reactive immune cells could contribute remotely to MS pathogenesis by delivering myelin antibodies to oligodendrocytes. EV-derived myelin antibodies could play a role as diagnostic biomarker in MS.

Background and Objective: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) for secondary stroke prevention is recommended in atrial fibrillation (AF) and other sources of cardioembolic stroke. Our objectives were to explore the differences in ischemic and hemorrhagic events when using OAC for secondary stroke prevention according to the type of anticoagulant treatment and to analyze the number and reasons for OAC switches during long-term follow-up.Methods: Ischemic stroke (IS) patients who were discharged on OAC for secondary stroke prevention from January 2014 to October 2017 were recruited in a prospective, multicenter, hospital-based registry. Follow-up at 3 months was scheduled at the outpatient clinic with subsequent annual phone interviews for 3 years. Patients were classified into three study groups according to OAC at discharge: Vitamin K antagonist (VKA), Factor Xa inhibitor (FXa), or direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI). We compared stroke recurrences, intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality during the follow-up. We recorded any switches in OAC and the main reasons for the change.Results: A total of 241 patients were included. An anticoagulant was indicated in the presence of a source of cardioembolic stroke in 240 patients (99.6%) and lupus plus antiphospholipid syndrome in one patient. Up to 86 patients (35.6%) were on OAC before the index stroke; in 71 (82.5%) of them, this was VKA. At hospital discharge, 105 were treated with FXa (43.8%), 96 with VKA (39.6%), and 40 with DTI (16.6%). The cumulative incidences at 3 years were 17% for stroke recurrence, 1.6% for intracranial hemorrhage, 4.9% for major hemorrhage, and 22.8% for all-cause mortality, with no differences among the OAC groups in any outcomes. During the follow-up, 40 OAC switches were recorded (63% of them to FXa), mostly due to stroke recurrence.Conclusion: Long-term OAC in secondary stroke prevention is associated with a lower frequency of bleeding complications than stroke recurrences. No differences between anticoagulant drugs were found in any of the analyzed outcomes. The main cause for OAC switch during follow-up was stroke recurrence.

Objectives: To know the frequency and characteristics of neurological manifestations of probable immune origin occurring after exposure to COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, to pre-study the usefulness of the Spanish pharmacovigilance system and lymphocyte transformation test in establishing causality.Methods: Retrospective case study, including patients admitted to the Neurology department from January 2021 to May 2022 with a probable neuroimmune disorder. Demographic, clinical and COVID-19 vaccination antecedent data were collected from medical records.Results: From a total of 108 patients, 30 were excluded due to a different etiological diagnosis after follow-up. Thirty-six patients (46.2%) had received the COVID-19 vaccine in the previous 3 months (21.8% during the previous month). BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine was the most frequent in this group (63.9%). 69/108 were female and mean age 51.2 years (SD 22.59), with no significant difference with not recently-vaccinated (U-Mann Whitney, p = 0.256). The neurological syndromes found were (vaccinated/total): polyradiculoneuropathy (8/16), encephalitis (5/11), multiple sclerosis relapse (5/16), optic neuritis (1/4), myelitis (3/6), cranial neuropathy (6/10), aseptic meningitis (1/3) and others (7/11). Acute immunosuppressive treatment was administered in 61.1% of cases and 47.2% presented complete clinical improvement, without significant differences with non-vaccinated patients (chi-square, p = 0.570). Eleven vaccinated patients were studied in the pharmacovigilance office for possible adverse drug reaction. Causality according to the Spanish pharmacovigilance system (SPVS) algorithm was “Related” to COVID-19 vaccine (score ≥ 4) in 11 cases with positive in vitro study (lymphocyte transformation test) to polyethylene glycol-2000 and polysorbate-80 in 4 cases.Conclusion: Neuroimmune disorders appearing after administration of COVID-19 vaccine do not seem to present important differentiating clinical and/or evolutive features. Delayed hypersensitivity to vaccine excipients could be one of the pathophysiological mechanisms, and lymphocyte transformation test is a useful tool to identify it.