Citations

ImportanceAutoimmune encephalitis misdiagnosis can lead to harm.ObjectiveTo determine the diseases misdiagnosed as autoimmune encephalitis and potential reasons for misdiagnosis.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective multicenter study took place from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, at autoimmune encephalitis subspecialty outpatient clinics including Mayo Clinic (n = 44), University of Oxford (n = 18), University of Texas Southwestern (n = 18), University of California, San Francisco (n = 17), Washington University in St Louis (n = 6), and University of Utah (n = 4). Inclusion criteria were adults (age ≥18 years) with a prior autoimmune encephalitis diagnosis at a participating center or other medical facility and a subsequent alternative diagnosis at a participating center. A total of 393 patients were referred with an autoimmune encephalitis diagnosis, and of those, 286 patients with true autoimmune encephalitis were excluded.Main Outcomes and MeasuresData were collected on clinical features, investigations, fulfillment of autoimmune encephalitis criteria, alternative diagnoses, potential contributors to misdiagnosis, and immunotherapy adverse reactions.ResultsA total of 107 patients were misdiagnosed with autoimmune encephalitis, and 77 (72%) did not fulfill diagnostic criteria for autoimmune encephalitis. The median (IQR) age was 48 (35.5-60.5) years and 65 (61%) were female. Correct diagnoses included functional neurologic disorder (27 [25%]), neurodegenerative disease (22 [20.5%]), primary psychiatric disease (19 [18%]), cognitive deficits from comorbidities (11 [10%]), cerebral neoplasm (10 [9.5%]), and other (18 [17%]). Onset was acute/subacute in 56 (52%) or insidious (>3 months) in 51 (48%). Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain was suggestive of encephalitis in 19 of 104 patients (18%) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pleocytosis occurred in 16 of 84 patients (19%). Thyroid peroxidase antibodies were elevated in 24 of 62 patients (39%). Positive neural autoantibodies were more frequent in serum than CSF (48 of 105 [46%] vs 7 of 91 [8%]) and included 1 or more of GAD65 (n = 14), voltage-gated potassium channel complex (LGI1 and CASPR2 negative) (n = 10), N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor by cell-based assay only (n = 10; 6 negative in CSF), and other (n = 18). Adverse reactions from immunotherapies occurred in 17 of 84 patients (20%). Potential contributors to misdiagnosis included overinterpretation of positive serum antibodies (53 [50%]), misinterpretation of functional/psychiatric, or nonspecific cognitive dysfunction as encephalopathy (41 [38%]).Conclusions and RelevanceWhen evaluating for autoimmune encephalitis, a broad differential diagnosis should be considered and misdiagnosis occurs in many settings including at specialized centers. In this study, red flags suggesting alternative diagnoses included an insidious onset, positive nonspecific serum antibody, and failure to fulfill autoimmune encephalitis diagnostic criteria. Autoimmune encephalitis misdiagnosis leads to morbidity from unnecessary immunotherapies and delayed treatment of the correct diagnosis.

Background Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by painful flares and inflammation, which negatively impact health‐related quality of life. RHAPSODY (rilonacept inhibition of interleukin‐1 alpha and beta for recurrent pericarditis: a pivotal symptomatology and outcomes study) evaluated the efficacy and safety of rilonacept (IL‐1α and ‐β cytokine trap) in recurrent pericarditis. A secondary analysis of these data evaluated the patient‐reported outcome questionnaire score change during the trial. Methods and Results Participants completed 5 patient‐reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires assessing pericarditis pain, health‐related quality of life, general health status, sleep impact, and overall symptom severity. PRO score changes during the treatment run‐in period (12 weeks) and the blinded randomized withdrawal period (up to 24 weeks) were evaluated using descriptive statistics and mixed model repeated measures analyses. Participants with PRO data from the run‐in period (n=84) and the randomized withdrawal period (n=61; 30 rilonacept, 31 placebo) were included in analyses. Run‐in baseline PRO scores indicated that pericarditis symptoms during pericarditis recurrence impacted health‐related quality of life. All PRO scores significantly improved ( P <0.001) on rilonacept treatment during the run‐in period. For the randomized withdrawal period, PRO scores were maintained for participants receiving rilonacept. For those receiving placebo and who experienced a recurrence, PRO scores deteriorated at the time of recurrence and then improved following rilonacept bailout. At randomized withdrawal Week 24/End of Study, scores of participants who received bailout rilonacept were similar to those of participants who had continued rilonacept. Conclusions These results demonstrate the burden of pericarditis recurrences and the improved physical and emotional health of patients with recurrent pericarditis while on rilonacept treatment. These findings extend prior rilonacept efficacy results, demonstrating improvements in patient‐reported health‐related quality of life, sleep, pain, and global symptom severity while on treatment. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03737110.

Abstract Introduction Advanced Practice Providers (APPs; Advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants) and physicians-in-training (residents, fellows) receive inadequate education on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)/perioperative OSA risks. However, they are front-line providers assessing these patients. Failure to mitigate this risk has led to significant postoperative morbidity/mortality. We assessed these providers’ perceptions to OSA/perioperative OSA training. Methods Surveys were sent to three provider roles, APPs, residents, and fellows, in four categories of practice at nine academic institutions between May 9-June 30, 2021. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests assessed association between survey responses and participant characteristics. False discovery rate adjustment accounted for multiple comparisons, threshold of q&lt;0.05 for statistical significance. Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel tests evaluated associations stratified by institution. Results 2236 of 6724 (33.3%) participants responded: 48.4% APPs, 11% Fellows and 40.6% Residents. Primary category of practice included: 20.3% Anesthesiology, 8.9% Family Medicine, 34.1%, Internal Medicine (IM)/IM subspecialties, 6.7% Obstetrics/Gynecology/Gynecologic Oncology, 25.9% Surgery/Surgery subspecialties, 4.1% Other.While 93.2% of respondents believed OSA is a risk factor for perioperative complications, fewer respondents reported that they felt adequately trained to assess for OSA (50.9%) in general, with significant differences noted by provider role (range 42-70%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 12-82%, q=0.001). Even fewer felt adequately trained to assess for OSA in perioperative patients (38.2%) with significant differences noted by provider role (range 31-52%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 15-84%, q=0.001).Across all categories of practice, respondents indicated that they would like additional educational training about OSA (76.7%). This varied by clinical role (range 64-82%, q=0.003), but not categories of practice (range 73-84%, q=0.13). Furthermore, respondents indicated they also desired additional education about OSA in the perioperative patient (75.5%). This extended across all clinical roles (range 68-77%, q=0.09) and categories of practice (range 72-80%, q=0.09). Conclusion We found significant differences in APP and physician-in-training perceptions of the adequacy of their current training and desire for further OSA/perioperative OSA education. Our study identifies a critical gap and opportunity to improve provider understanding and patient care. Support (If Any) American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation (AASMF) award.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%–12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.