General features, pathogenesis, and laboratory diagnostics of autoimmune encephalitis.

Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is a group of inflammatory conditions that can associate with the presence of antibodies directed to neuronal intracellular, or cell surface antigens. These disorders are increasingly recognized as an important differential diagnosis of infectious encephalitis and of other common neuropsychiatric conditions. Autoantibody diagnostics plays a pivotal role for accurate diagnosis of AE, which is of utmost importance for the prompt recognition and early treatment. Several AE subgroups can be identified, either according to the prominent clinical phenotype, presence of a concomitant tumor, or type of neuronal autoantibody, and recent diagnostic criteria have provided important insights into AE classification. Antibodies to neuronal intracellular antigens typically associate with paraneoplastic neurological syndromes and poor prognosis, whereas antibodies to synaptic/neuronal cell surface antigens characterize many AE subtypes that associate with tumors less frequently, and that are often immunotherapy-responsive. In addition to the general features of AE, we review current knowledge on the pathogenic mechanisms underlying these disorders, focusing mainly on the potential role of neuronal antibodies in the most frequent conditions, and highlight current theories and controversies. Then, we dissect the crucial aspects of the laboratory diagnostics of neuronal antibodies, which represents an actual challenge for both pathologists and neurologists. Indeed, this diagnostics entails technical difficulties, along with particularly interesting novel features and pitfalls. The novelties especially apply to the wide range of assays used, including specific tissue-based and cell-based assays. These assays can be developed in-house, usually in specialized laboratories, or are commercially available. They are widely used in clinical immunology and in clinical chemistry laboratories, with relevant differences in analytic performance. Indeed, several data indicate that in-house assays could perform better than commercial kits, notwithstanding that the former are based on non-standardized protocols. Moreover, they need expertise and laboratory facilities usually unavailable in clinical chemistry laboratories. Together with the data of the literature, we critically evaluate the analytical performance of the in-house vs commercial kit-based approach. Finally, we propose an algorithm aimed at integrating the present strategies of the laboratory diagnostics in AE for the best clinical management of patients with these disorders.

Clinical, prognostic and pathophysiological implications of MOG-IgG detection in the CSF: the importance of intrathecal MOG-IgG synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein IgG (CSF MOG-IgG) are found in a proportion of patients with MOG antibody-associated disorder (MOGAD) and have been associated with severe disease presentations. However, most studies did not systematically investigate the role of MOG-IgG intrathecal synthesis (ITS). METHODS: We retrospectively studied 960 consecutive patients with paired serum and CSF samples screened for MOG-IgG using a live cell-based assays. MOG-IgG-specific antibody index (AIMOG) was systematically calculated using serum and CSF titres to assess MOG-IgG ITS, and clinical features were compared between MOG-IgG CSF+/CSF- and ITS+/ITS- patients. RESULTS: MOG-IgG were found in 55/960 patients (5.7%; serum+/CSF-: 58.2%, serum+/CSF+: 34.5%; serum-/CSF+: 7.3%). Serum/CSF MOG-IgG titres showed a moderate correlation in patients without ITS (ρ=0.47 (CI 0.18 to 0.68), p<0.001), but not in those with ITS (ρ=0.14 (CI -0.46 to -0.65), p=0.65). There were no clinical-paraclinical differences between MOG-IgG CSF+ vs CSF- patients. Conversely, patients with MOG-IgG ITS showed pyramidal symptoms (73% vs 32%, p=0.03), spinal cord involvement (82% vs 39%, p=0.02) and severe outcome at follow-up (36% vs 5%, p=0.02) more frequently than those without MOG-IgG ITS. A multivariate logistic regression model indicated that MOG-IgG ITS was an independent predictor of a poor outcome (OR: 14.93 (CI 1.40 to 19.1); p=0.03). AIMOG correlated with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores at disease nadir and at last follow-up (p=0.02 and p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Consistently with physiopathology, MOG-IgG ITS is a promising prognostic factor in MOGAD, and its calculation could enhance the clinical relevance of CSF MOG-IgG testing, making a case for its introduction in clinical practice.

MOG-IgG testing strategies in accordance with the 2023 MOGAD criteria: a clinical-laboratory assessment.

BACKGROUND: Live cell-based assay (LCBA) is the gold standard for MOG-IgG detection, and fixed CBA (FCBA) is a widely used commercial alternative. Recent criteria attributed a diagnostic value to MOG-IgG titration with both LCBA and FCBA, with low-titre samples requiring additional supporting features for MOGAD diagnosis. However, FCBA titration is not validated. We aimed to assess the impact of the criteria-based MOG-IgG testing in MOGAD diagnosis. METHODS: Thirty-eight serum samples of LCBA MOG-IgG1-positive MOGAD patients were titred on MOG-IgG LCBA and FCBA, and the presence of supporting features for MOGAD assessed. MOGAD criteria were evaluated in four testing scenarios: (a) FCBA without titration; (b) FCBA with titration; c) LCBA without titration; (d) LCBA with titration. RESULTS: FCBA without titration failed to reach MOGAD diagnosis in 11/38 patients (28.9%, negative results in 5, lack of supporting features in 6). Patients with unconfirmed diagnosis had optic neuritis (ON, n = 8), or transverse myelitis (TM, n = 3). FCBA with titration allowed MOGAD diagnosis in 4 additional patients. Correlation between LCBA and FCBA titres was moderate (Spearman's rho 0.6, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FCBA yields high rate of misdiagnosis mainly due a lower analytical sensitivity. FCBA titration provides a moderate diagnostic advantage in FCBA positive patients.