Abstract
Objective We sought to validate methods for detection and confirmation of GABAA receptor (R)-IgG and clinically characterize seropositive cases.
Methods Archived serum and CSF specimens (185 total) suspected to harbor GABAAR-IgG were evaluated by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA). Twenty-six specimens from 19 patients appeared suspicious for GABAAR–IgG positivity by IFA, based on prior reports and comparison with commercial GABAAR antibody staining. Aliquots of those specimens were tested at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and Euroimmun, Lubeck, Germany, for GABAAR-IgG by cell-based assays (CBAs) using HEK293-indicator cells transfected with plasmids encoding different GABAAR subunits.
Results Eight specimens (of 26 tested; 4 serums, 4 CSFs) from 5 patients were confirmed by CBA to be GABAAR-IgG positive. Patient IgGs were always reactive with α1β3 GABAAR subunits. One more patient was identified clinically after this validation study. Median age for the 6 patients at serologic diagnosis was 44 years (range, 1–71 years), and 4 of them were male. Among the 4 for whom clinical information was available (2 treated by the authors), all had encephalitis and antiepileptic drug refractory seizures. Three out of 4 patients treated with a combination of immunotherapies had good outcomes. The fourth, recognized to have an autoimmune cause late in the clinical course, had severe permanent neurologic sequelae and brain atrophy.
Conclusions Though not as common as NMDA-R encephalitis, GABAAR encephalitis generally has a characteristic clinical-radiologic presentation and is treatable, making accurate laboratory diagnosis critical.
Glossary
- CBA=
- cell-based assay;
- GABAA=
- γ aminobutyric acid;
- GAD=
- glutamic acid decarboxylase;
- IFA=
- immunofluorescence assay;
- IVIg=
- intravenous immune globulin;
- WBC=
- white blood cell
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/NN.
The Article Processing Charge was funded by the authors.
Editorial, page e554
- Received December 28, 2018.
- Accepted in final form February 14, 2019.
- Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
