A considerable portion of autoimmune encephalitis (AE) does not respond to conventional immunotherapies and subsequently has poor outcomes. We aimed to determine the efficacy of tocilizumab, an anti-interleukin-6 antibody, in rituximab-refractory AE compared with other treatment options. From an institutional cohort of AE, 91 patients with inadequate clinical response to first-line immunotherapy and following rituximab were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped according to their further immunotherapy strategies. Thirty (33.0 %) patients were included in the tocilizumab group, 31 (34.0 %) in the additional rituximab group, and 30 (33.0 %) in the observation group. Outcomes were defined as the favorable modified Rankin Scale scores (≤2) at 1 and 2 months from the initiation of each treatment strategy and at the last follow-up. Favorable clinical response (improvement of the modified Rankin Scale scores by ≥ 2 points or achievement of the mRS scores ≤ 2) at the last follow-up was also analyzed. The tocilizumab group showed more frequent favorable mRS scores at 2 months from treatment initiation and at the last follow-up compared with those at the relevant time points of the remaining groups. The majority (89.5 %) of the patients with clinical improvement at 1 month from tocilizumab treatment maintained a long-term favorable clinical response. No serious adverse effects of rituximab or tocilizumab were reported. Therefore, we suggest that tocilizumab might be a good treatment strategy for treating AE refractory to conventional immunotherapies and rituximab. The tocilizumab-mediated clinical improvement manifests as early at 1 month after treatment initiation.

Objective: To determine efficacy and safety of rituximab treatment as a second-line immunotherapy treatment for autoimmune limbic encephalitis (ALE) and to determine factors associated with functional improvement and favorable outcome following rituximab treatment. Methods: We recruited 80 patients with ALE who were treated with rituximab as a second-line immunotherapy from the Korea Autoimmune Synaptic and Paraneoplastic Encephalitis Registry and reviewed 81 patients without rituximab as a control. We grouped patients according to the detection or type of antibodies; in addition, we evaluated clinical, laboratory, first-line immunotherapy, and rituximab treatment profiles and defined main outcomes as improvements on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score and a favorable mRS score (0–2) at the last follow-up. Results: Functional improvement occurred more frequently in the rituximab group compared to the control group. In the rituximab group, 30 (37.5%) patients had synaptic autoantibodies, 15 (18.8%) in the paraneoplastic autoantibodies, and 35 (43.8%) were antibody-negative. The effect of rituximab was the same regardless of autoantibody status. Additional monthly rituximab therapy and partial response to first-line immunotherapies were associated with mRS score improvements, as well as favorable mRS scores. mRS scores of 4–6 as the worst neurologic status predicted an unfavorable mRS score. There were no reported serious infusion-related or infectious adverse effects of rituximab. Conclusions: Rituximab is effective and safe as a second-line immunotherapy for ALE, regardless of autoantibody status. Additional monthly rituximab therapy might potentiate the efficacy of rituximab. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that rituximab improves mRS scores for patients with autoimmune limbic encephalitis who fail first-line therapy.

Seronegative autoimmune encephalitis is autoimmune encephalitis without any identifiable pathogenic antibody. Although it is a major subtype of autoimmune encephalitis, many unmet clinical needs exist in terms of clinical characteristics, treatments and prognosis. In this institutional cohort study, patients diagnosed with seronegative autoimmune encephalitis with available 2-year outcomes were analysed for the disease course, 2-year outcome prediction system, effect of immunotherapy, necessity of further immunotherapy at 6 or 12 months and pattern of brain atrophy. Seronegative autoimmune encephalitis was subcategorized into antibody-negative probable autoimmune encephalitis, autoimmune limbic encephalitis and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. Poor 2-year outcome was defined by modified Rankin scale scores 3–6, and the 2-year serial data of Clinical Assessment Scales in Autoimmune Encephalitis score was used for longitudinal data analyses. A total of 147 patients were included. The frequency of achieving a good 2-year outcome (modified Rankin scale 0–2) was 56.5%. The antibody-negative probable autoimmune encephalitis subtype exhibited the poorest outcomes, although the baseline severity was similar among the subtypes. The RAPID score, consisting of five early usable clinical factors, refractory status epilepticus, age of onset ≥60 years, probable autoimmune encephalitis (antibody-negative probable autoimmune encephalitis subtype), infratentorial involvement and delay of immunotherapy ≥1 month, was associated with poorer 2-year outcomes. Any immunotherapy was associated with clinical improvement in the patients with low risk for poor 2-year outcomes (RAPID scores 0–1), and the combination immunotherapy of steroid, immunoglobulin, rituximab and tocilizumab was associated with better outcomes in the patients with high risk for poor 2-year outcomes (RAPID scores 2–5). In patients with persistent disease at 6 months, continuing immunotherapy was associated with more improvement, while the effect of continuing immunotherapy for more than 12 months was unclear. In the longitudinal analysis of MRI, the development of cerebellar atrophy indicated poor outcomes, while the absence of diffuse cerebral atrophy or medial temporal atrophy indicated the possibility of a good outcome. This study provides information about the clinical characteristics and courses, the effect of immunotherapy and its duration, and prognostic factors in seronegative autoimmune encephalitis.