Evidence Hub

Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis: An observational and comparative study in Mexican children and adults

Patricia Herrera-Mora, Leticia Munive-Báez, M. Ruíz García, Alfredo Galindo-Martínez, Daniela Ellis Maldonado-Diaz, R. Delgado, Graciela Cárdenas

Clinical neurology and neurosurgery (Dutch-Flemish ed. Print), 2021

40 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To present a case series of encephalitis patients with anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antibodies, attending two neurological referral centers in a three-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive, comparative study included child and adult patients in two neurological populations, positive for antibodies against the NR1 and NR2 subunits of the glutamate (NMDA) receptor in serum and CSF, as determined during a three-year period.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were included (40 children and 26 adults). Male patients were more affected (M: F ratio was 1:0.6). No differences in progression or hospitalization time were observed between groups. In children, 35% of patients showed herpetic infection before autoimmune encephalitis (P = 0.01). Among viral prodromal symptoms, upper respiratory tract infection (P = 0.02) and fever (P = 0.001) predominated in children, while infectious gastroenteritis was more frequent in adults (P = 0.03). Among neuropsychiatric signs, mental confusion (P = 0.0001) and orofacial dyskinesia/oromandibular dystonia (P = 0.0001) were frequent in children, while emotional lability (P = 0.03), catatonia (P = 0.0001), and headache (P = 0.005) predominated in adults. The score in the modified Rankin scale on admission was higher in children (4.3 ± 0.8 vs. 2.2 ± 1.3, P = 0.0001), but at one-year of clinical follow up no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Male patients were predominantly affected in our population. One-third of all…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 40 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free