Epidemiology of NMOSD in Catalonia: Influence of the new 2015 criteria in incidence and prevalence estimates.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies on neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) are limited, and it is unclear whether the rates have changed with the implementation of the new 2015 criteria. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence and prevalence of NMOSD in Catalonia (Spain), using both the 2006 and the 2015 criteria. METHODS: In this clinic-based retrospective study, patients diagnosed with NMOSD between 2006 and 2015 were identified using multiple sources, including direct contact to all Catalan hospitals, identification of cases through the Catalan Health Surveillance System, and registry of antibodies to aquaporin-4 (AQP4-IgG) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG-IgG) in a reference laboratory. The incidence rate was calculated for the period 1 January 2006-1 January 2016 and prevalence for the date 1 January 2016. RESULTS: We identified 74 patients (by the 2015 criteria). Most patients were Caucasian (81%), and female (76%) with a median age at disease onset of 42 years (range, 10-76 years). In total, 54 (73%) patients were positive for AQP4-IgG, 11 (15%) double-seronegative, and 9 (12%) MOG-IgG-positive. Rates of incidence and prevalence (0.63/1,000,000 person-years and 0.89/100,000, respectively) were 1.5-fold higher than those reported by the 2006 criteria. Lowest rates were seen in children and elder people and highest in women and middle-aged people (40-59 years). The female predominance was lost in incident AQP4-IgG-seronegative children and AQP4-IgG-positive elder people. MOG-IgG and double-seronegativity contributed similarly but did not influence the long-term outcome. CONCLUSION: The new criteria increase the estimates, but NMOSD remains as a rare disease. The differences in age- and sex-specific estimates highlight the importance of the serologic classification.

Anti-Ma and anti-Ma2-associated paraneoplastic neurological syndromes. / Síndromes neurológicos paraneoplásicos asociados a anticuerpos anti-Ma y anti-Ma2.

OBJECTIVE: Analyse the clinical profile, associated tumour types, and response to treatment of paraneoplastic neurological syndromes associated with antibodies against Ma proteins. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients with antibodies against Ma proteins identified in a neuroimmunology laboratory of reference. RESULTS: Of the 32 patients identified, 20 showed reactivity against Ma2 only (anti-Ma2 antibodies), 11 against Ma1 and Ma2 (anti-Ma antibodies), and 1 with reactivity against Ma1 only (anti-Ma1 antibodies). The most common clinical presentations were limbic encephalopathy, diencephalic dysfunction, or brainstem encephalopathy, frequently appearing as a combination of these features. Three patients had isolated cerebellar dysfunction with anti-Ma antibodies, and 2 exhibited peripheral nervous system syndrome with anti-Ma2 antibodies. Testicular tumours were the most common neoplasms (40%) in the anti-Ma2 cases. In the group associated with anti-Ma1 antibodies, the most common were lung tumours (36%), followed by testicular tumours. All idiopathic cases were reactive to Ma2. The clinical outcome was significantly better in the anti-Ma2 group. The patient with anti-Ma1 presented with limbic encephalitis and brainstem dysfunction associated with lymphoepithelioma of the bladder. CONCLUSIONS: Specifically determining the different reactivities of anti-Ma protein antibodies in order to differentiate between Ma1 and Ma2 antibodies is important because anti-Ma2-associated paraneoplastic syndromes have a better outcome. Lastly, this study is the first to confirm that there may be cases that react exclusively to antibodies against Ma1.

Síndromes neurológicos paraneoplásicos asociados a anticuerpos anti-Ma y anti-Ma2 / Anti-Ma and anti-Ma2-associated paraneoplastic neurological syndromes

Objetivo: Analizar el perfil clínico, los tipos de tumor asociado y la respuesta al tratamiento de los síndromes neurológicos paraneoplásicos asociados a anticuerpos contra proteínas Ma. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo de los pacientes con anticuerpos contra proteínas Ma identificados en un laboratorio de referencia en neuroinmunología. Resultados: Se diagnosticó a 32 pacientes, 20 con reactividad frente a Ma2 aislada (anticuerpos anti-Ma2), 11 con reactividad frente a Ma1 y Ma2 (anticuerpos anti-Ma) y uno con reactividad frente a Ma1 aislada (anticuerpos anti-Ma1). La presentación clínica más frecuente fue un cuadro neurológico que de forma aislada o en combinación afectó al sistema límbico, diencéfalo y mesencéfalo. Tres pacientes presentaron un cuadro cerebeloso aislado con anti-Ma y 2 un síndrome periférico con anti-Ma2. Los tumores testiculares fueron los más frecuentes (40%) en los casos anti-Ma2. En el grupo asociado a anti-Ma1, los más frecuentes fueron los tumores de pulmón (36%), seguidos de los testiculares. Todos los casos idiopáticos fueron reactivos frente a Ma2. La evolución clínica fue significativamente mejor en el grupo anti-Ma2. El paciente con anti-Ma1 presentó un cuadro de encefalitis límbica y mesodiencefálica asociado a un cáncer linfoepitelial de vejiga. Conclusiones: La determinación específica de las diferentes reactividades de las proteínas Ma, diferenciando los anticuerpos frente a Ma1 y Ma2, es importante pues los síndromes neurológicos asociados a anticuerpos anti-Ma2 responden mejor al tratamiento. Finalmente, se confirma por primera vez que puede haber casos con anticuerpos que solo reaccionan contra Ma1 (AU)

Objective: Analyse the clinical profile, associated tumour types, and response to treatment of paraneoplastic neurological syndromes associated with antibodies against Ma proteins. Methods: A retrospective study of patients with antibodies against Ma proteins identified in a neuroimmunology laboratory of reference. Results: Of the 32 patients identified, 20 showed reactivity against Ma2 only (anti-Ma2 antibodies), 11 against Ma1 and Ma2 (anti-Ma antibodies), and 1 with reactivity against Ma1 only (anti-Ma1 antibodies). The most common clinical presentations were limbic encephalopathy, diencephalic dysfunction, or brainstem encephalopathy, frequently appearing as a combination of these features. Three patients had isolated cerebellar dysfunction with anti-Ma antibodies, and 2 exhibited peripheral nervous system syndrome with anti-Ma2 antibodies. Testicular tumours were the most common neoplasms (40%) in the anti-Ma2 cases. In the group associated with anti-Ma1 antibodies, the most common were lung tumours (36%), followed by testicular tumours. All idiopathic cases were reactive to Ma2. The clinical outcome was significantly better in the anti-Ma2 group. The patient with anti-Ma1 presented with limbic encephalitis and brainstem dysfunction associated with lymphoepithelioma of the bladder. Conclusions: Specifically determining the different reactivities of anti-Ma protein antibodies in order to differentiate between Ma1 and Ma2 antibodies is important because anti-Ma2-associated paraneoplastic syndromes have a better outcome. Lastly, this study is the first to confirm that there may be cases that react exclusively to antibodies against Ma1 (AU)