Journal of Neurology

, Volume 264, Issue 4, pp 647–653 | Cite as

Differences in treatment of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: results of a worldwide survey

Original Communication

Abstract

The objective of the study was to identify differences in treatment strategies for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis based on specialty of treating physicians, geographic location, and years in practice. We conducted an anonymous worldwide electronic survey through the Practice Current section of Neurology® Clinical Practice to appraise differences in decisions about first- and second-line treatment and timing for initiation of second-line treatment for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. 399 participants answered all questions of the survey and were included in the analysis. 261 (65%) were adult neurologists, 86 (22%) were neurologists treating children, and 52 (13%) were pediatric rheumatologists. 179 (45%) responders practiced in the US. The majority agreed on the use of steroids and/or IVIg for first-line therapy and rituximab alone as second line. Differences in initial treatment regimen based on specialty included increased use of plasma exchange by adult neurologists (27%) and rituximab by pediatric rheumatologists (29%) (χ 2(4) = 27.43, p < 0.001). Trainees opted for plasma exchange (35%) and junior faculty picked rituximab (15%) more as part of first line (χ 2(4) = 13.37, p = 0.010). There was greater usage of anti-metabolites for second-line therapy outside of the US (15%) (χ 2(4) = 11.67, p = 0.020). US physicians also utilized second-line treatment earlier than their mostly European counterparts (14 vs. 23% used later than 2 weeks; χ 2(1) = 4.96, p = 0.026). Although treatment patterns were similar, differences observed across specialties and geographic locations may guide the development of consensus-driven guidelines by multi-disciplinary task forces. These guidelines may promote treatment trials of immunomodulators in autoimmune encephalitides.

Keywords

Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis Treatment Immunotherapy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the managing editor of Neurology Clinical Practice, Mrs. Sharon Quimby, for her contribution to the creation of the electronic survey.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

The present study was certified as research exempt from IRB review by Children’s National Health System Institutional Review Board Committee in accordance with article 45 CFR 46.101(b)—Category 2 (Research involving the use of educational tests, survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior). The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

415_2017_8407_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Granerod J, Ambrose HE, Davies NWS, Clewley JP, Walsh AL, Morgan D et al (2010) Causes of encephalitis and differences in their clinical presentations in England: a multicentre, population-based prospective study. Lancet Infect Dis 10:835–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vitaliani R, Mason W, Ances B, Zwerdling T, Jiang Z, Dalmau J (2005) Paraneoplastic encephalitis, psychiatric symptoms, and hypoventilation in ovarian teratoma. Ann Neurol 58:594–604CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalmau J, Tuzun E, Wu HY, Masjuan J, Rossi JE, Voloschin A et al (2007) Paraneoplastic anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor encephalitis associated with ovarian teratoma. Ann Neurol 61:25–36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalmau J, Gleichman AJ, Hughes EG, Rossi JE, Peng X, Lai M et al (2008) Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: case series and analysis of the effects of antibodies. Lancet Neurol 7:1091–1098CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Titulaer MJ, McCracken L, Gabilondo I, Armangué T, Glaser C, Iizuka T et al (2013) Treatment and prognostic factors for long-term outcome in patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: an observational cohort study. Lancet Neurol 12:157–165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gronseth GS, Woodroffe LM, Getchius TS (2011) Clinical practice guideline process manual. American Academy of Neurology, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartolini L (2016) Practice current: how do you treat anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis? Neurol Clin Pract 6:69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irani SR, Bera K, Waters P, Zuliani L, Maxwell S, Zandi MS et al (2010) N-methyl-d-aspartate antibody encephalitis: temporal progression of clinical and paraclinical observations in a predominantly non-paraneoplastic disorder of both sexes. Brain 133:1655–1667CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Practice current. http://cp.neurology.org/site/misc/practice_current.xhtml. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
  10. 10.
    Talan J (2016) When guidelines aren’t available, how do you treat…?: neurology turns to clinical practice surveys. Neurol Today 16(4):33–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gastaldi M, Thouin A, Vincent A (2016) Antibody-mediated autoimmune encephalopathies and immunotherapies. Neurotherapeutics 13:147–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martinez-Hernandez E, Horvath J, Shiloh-Malawsky Y, Sangha N, Martinez-Lage M, Dalmau J (2011) Analysis of complement and plasma cells in the brain of patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis. Neurology 77:589–593CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rath E, Zwerina J, Oppl B, Nell-Duxneuner V (2015) Efficacy and safety of rituximab in rheumatic diseases. Wien Med Wochenschr 165:28–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tambralli A, Beukelman T, Cron RQ, Stoll ML (2015) Safety and efficacy of rituximab in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus and other rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 42:541–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kosmidis ML, Dalakas MC (2010) Practical considerations on the use of rituximab in autoimmune neurological disorders. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 3:93–105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brummaier T, Pohanka E, Studnicka-Benke A, Pieringer H (2013) Using cyclophosphamide in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Eur J Intern Med 24:590–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meuwissen SG, Ewe K, Gassull MA, Geboes K, Jewell D, Pallone F et al (2000) IOIBD questionnaire on the clinical use of azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, cyclosporin A and methotrexate in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:13–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurian M, Fluss J, Korff C (2012) Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: the importance of early diagnosis and aggressive immunotherapy in tumor negative pediatric patients. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 16:764–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedman CP, Gatti GG, Franz TM, Murphy GC, Wolf FM, Heckerling PS et al (2005) Do physicians know when their diagnoses are correct? Implications for decision support and error reduction. J Gen Intern Med 20:334–339CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moulton CA, Regehr G, Mylopoulos M, MacRae HM (2007) Slowing down when you should: a new model of expert judgment. Acad Med 82:S109–S116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fricker RD (2012) Sampling Methods for Web and E-mail Surveys. In: Fielding N, Lee RM, Blank G (eds) The SAGE handbook of online research methods. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for NeuroscienceGeorge Washington University, Children’s National Health SystemWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pediatrics, Sections of Immunology, Allergy and Rheumatology and Co-appointment in Child Neurology, Baylor College of MedicineTexas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations