The objective of this paper is to evaluate available evidence for each step in autoimmune encephalitis management and provide expert opinion when evidence is lacking. The paper approaches autoimmune encephalitis as a broad category rather than focusing on individual antibody syndromes. Core authors from the Autoimmune Encephalitis Alliance Clinicians Network reviewed literature and developed the first draft. Where evidence was lacking or controversial, an electronic survey was distributed to all members to solicit individual responses. Sixty-eight members from 17 countries answered the survey. Corticosteroids alone or combined with other agents (intravenous IG or plasmapheresis) were selected as a first-line therapy by 84% of responders for patients with a general presentation, 74% for patients presenting with faciobrachial dystonic seizures, 63% for NMDAR-IgG encephalitis and 48.5% for classical paraneoplastic encephalitis. Half the responders indicated they would add a second-line agent only if there was no response to more than one first-line agent, 32% indicated adding a second-line agent if there was no response to one first-line agent, while only 15% indicated using a second-line agent in all patients. As for the preferred second-line agent, 80% of responders chose rituximab while only 10% chose cyclophosphamide in a clinical scenario with unknown antibodies. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript and a summary of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations is presented at the conclusion.

The objective of this paper is to evaluate available evidence for each step in autoimmune encephalitis management and provide expert opinion when evidence is lacking. The paper approaches autoimmune encephalitis as a broad category rather than focusing on individual antibody syndromes. Core authors from the Autoimmune Encephalitis Alliance Clinicians Network reviewed literature and developed the first draft. Where evidence was lacking or controversial, an electronic survey was distributed to all members to solicit individual responses. Sixty-eight members from 17 countries answered the survey. The most popular bridging therapy was oral prednisone taper chosen by 38% of responders while rituximab was the most popular maintenance therapy chosen by 46%. Most responders considered maintenance immunosuppression after a second relapse in patients with neuronal surface antibodies (70%) or seronegative autoimmune encephalitis (61%) as opposed to those with onconeuronal antibodies (29%). Most responders opted to cancer screening for 4 years in patients with neuronal surface antibodies (49%) or limbic encephalitis (46%) as opposed to non-limbic seronegative autoimmune encephalitis (36%). Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript and a summary of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations is presented at the conclusion.

ObjectiveAnti-N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor (NMDA-R) encephalitis is a new autoimmune disorder, often paraneoplastic in nature, presenting with complex neuropsychiatric symptoms. Diagnosed serologically, this disorder is often responsive to immunosuppressant treatment. The objective of this review is to educate clinicians on the challenges of diagnosis and management of this disorder.Materials and methodsA review of the relevant literature on clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and recommended management was conducted using a PubMed search. Examination of the results identified articles published between 2007 and 2014.ResultsThe literature highlights the importance of recognizing early common signs and symptoms, which include hallucinations, seizures, altered mental status, and movement disorders, often in the absence of fever. Although the presence of blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid autoantibodies confirms diagnosis, approximately 15% of patients have only positive cerebrospinal fluid titers. Antibody detection should prompt a search for an underlying teratoma or other underlying neoplasm and the initiation of first-line immunosuppressant therapy: intravenous methylprednisolone, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis, or a combination thereof. Second-line treatment with rituximab or cyclophosphamide should be implemented if no improvement is noted after 10 days. Complications can include behavioral problems (eg, aggression and insomnia), hypoventilation, catatonia, and autonomic instability. Those patients who can be managed outside an intensive care unit and whose tumors are identified and removed typically have better rates of remission and functional outcomes.ConclusionThere is an increasing need for clinicians of different specialties, including psychiatrists, neurologists, oncologists, neurooncologists, immunologists, and intensivists to become familiar with this disorder and its potential complications. Remission can be optimized with prompt detection and aggressive, collaborative treatment within a multidisciplinary team.

Aside from glatiramer acetate and interferon-beta therapies, all other multiple sclerosis treatments to various degrees impair immune surveillance and may predispose patients to the development of both community-acquired and opportunistic infections. Some of these infections are rarely seen in neurologic practice, and neurologists should be aware of how to monitor for these infections and how to educate patients about medication-specific risks. Of particular interest in this discussion is the risk of PML in association with the recently approved B cell depleting therapy, ocrelizumab, particularly when switching from natalizumab. The risk of infection in association with MS treatments has become one of the most important factors in the choice of therapy. Balance of the overall risk versus benefit should be continuously re-evaluated during treatment.

No abstract