Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology

Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 5(12): 1534-1542

Area postrema syndrome as frequent feature of Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis

Pia S. Zeiner

pia.zeiner@kgu.de

¹ ² , Annemarie Brandhofe ¹ , Monika Müller‐Eschner ³ , Helmuth Steinmetz ¹ , Waltraud Pfeilschifter ¹

¹. Department of Neurology University Hospital/Goethe University Frankfurt Schleusenweg 2‐16 Frankfurt/Main 60528 Germany

². Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Neurooncology University Hospital/Goethe University Frankfurt Heinrich‐Hoffmann‐Strasse 7 Frankfurt/Main 60528 Germany

³. Institute of Neuroradiology University Hospital/Goethe University Frankfurt Schleusenweg 2‐16 Frankfurt/Main 60528 Germany

*. Correspondence
Pia S. Zeiner, University Hospital/Goethe University, Department of Neurology, Schleusenweg 2‐16, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Tel: +4969630187721; Fax: +496963014498; E‐mail: pia.zeiner@kgu.de

© 2018 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc on behalf of American Neurological Association.

DOI: 10.1002/acn3.666

Published online: 31 October 2018

Abstract

Objective

Area postrema (

AP

) syndrome (defined as: nausea and/or emesis and/or singultus at onset of brainstem dysfunction) comprises complex pathophysiologic mechanisms triggered by different entities. The first objective was to assess the frequency of

AP

syndrome as a clinical feature in brainstem encephalitis (

BE

). Finding an especially high prevalence of

AP

syndrome in Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis (

BBE

), we also analyzed the frequency of

AP

syndrome in other autoimmune diseases with anti‐ganglioside antibodies (Guillain–Barré syndrome (

GBS

) and its variants).

Methods

We systematically evaluated the prevalence of

AP

syndrome in

BE

in all patients treated at our university hospital during a 15‐year period. In a second step,

BBE

patients were compared to

GBS

and Miller Fisher syndrome (

MFS

) patients as clinical subtypes of a disease continuum without brainstem dysfunction.

Results

We found

AP

syndrome in 8 of 21

BE

patients, including 3 of 7

BBE

and in 4 of 112

GBS

/

MFS

patients.

AP

syndrome was as a frequent but under‐recognized feature of

BE

with a significant impact on patients’ well being.

Interpretation

Manifestation of

AP

syndrome in

BBE

but also in

GBS

and its subtypes point toward a role of autoimmune antibodies that should be investigated in future studies. Considerable misdiagnosis or nonrecognition complicates diagnostic and therapeutic management. Therefore,

AP

syndrome should be considered in any episode of otherwise unexplained nausea, emesis, or singultus.

Introduction

Area postrema (AP) syndrome is characterized by intractable nausea, emesis, and singultus1 caused by various mechanisms involving the AP and nearby brainstem structures harboring the chemoreceptor trigger zone (CTZ) of the „vomiting center” that receives input from the abdominal vagus,2 vestibular region, higher cortical and thalamic centers, and chemoreceptors of the AP.3 Belonging to the sensory circumventricular organs,4 the AP fulfills an exclusive function in chemotactic sensing between the central nervous system (CNS) and the blood stream with the blood–brain barrier (BBB) being replaced by specialized capillaries 4, 5 permeable to certain substances.6 The chemoreceptors of AP neurons are easily accessible for endo‐ and exogenous substances and multiple neurotransmitters are involved in the emetic reflex.7 However, some trigger pathologies of AP syndrome are under‐recognized since the exact pathophysiologic mechanisms are not fully understood. Basically, AP lesions and longitudinally extensive myelopathies of diverse etiologies can trigger AP syndrome. Most often, they are attributable to inflammatory entities. Also, neoplastic brainstem lesions can present with AP syndrome.8, 9, 10, 11 In addition, AP syndrome can be caused by irritation of the CTZ at the molecular level which does not necessarily show up in lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as known from drug‐induced AP syndrome.3 There is evidence about an association between AP syndrome and antibody‐mediated disorders like neuromyelitis optica and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMO/NMOSD),12, 13, 14, 15 often presenting longitudinal brainstem lesions16 and AP syndrome was recognized as a core characteristic by the International Panel for NMO Diagnosis.17, 18 AP lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS)19 seem to provoke AP syndrome less frequently than comparable NMO lesions.20 This suggests additional trigger mechanisms beyond the mere localization of lesions and has led to the hypothesis that there is a causative role played by antibodies in AP syndrome.1, 14 Supporting this hypothesis, AP syndrome was described in paraneoplastic brainstem encephalitis (BE).21 Pathogenic autoimmune antibodies (anti‐ganglioside antibodies) likewise play a role in Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis (BBE), the CNS subtype of Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS).22 Atypical manifestations23 and an overlap with different variants of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) are reported, altogether representing a clinicopathological continuum with variable involvement of the peripheral (PNS) and the central nervous system (CNS).24 There is a report of a GBS patient with intractable nausea and emesis interpreted as having cyclic vomiting syndrome,25 a chronic condition with recurrent emesis of unknown cause requiring exclusion of CNS disease. Remarkably, the report conveys uncertainty regarding the diagnosis of GBS in view of numerous symptoms reported, suggesting CNS involvement and a potential AP syndrome explaining emesis in the particular patient.25 Furthermore, single reports comment on otherwise unexplained emesis in infectious BE26, 27 without explicitly placing these symptoms in the context of a quite conceivable AP syndrome.

We retrospectively evaluated the prevalence of AP syndrome in all consecutive cases of BE of different pathologies, including BBE treated at our department over a 15‐year period. In a second step, we assessed the frequency of AP syndrome in GBS and its variants in comparison to BBE.

Patients and Methods

Study design and population

To assess the frequency of AP syndrome in BE, we first performed a systematic retrospective observational study of all BE patients (n = 21) treated at the Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main. Patients were identified through a database search of our hospital information system (ORBIS software, Agfa HealthCare, Bonn, Germany) for patients with a discharge diagnosis of DRG G04.8 (including encephalitis, myelitis, and encephalomyelitis, not specified) between January 2002 and September 2017 followed by a review of each patient record for the BE criterion. Patients with a discharge diagnosis G04.8 not showing evidence of BE in the patient record (n = 118) were excluded (Table S1). Finally, 21 BE patients were included in the analysis: N = 7 BBE patients (including GBS/BBE overlap), n = 9 patients with autoimmune BE of unknown cause (including n = 2 BE patients potentially related to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)), n = 1 patient with Morvan's syndrome, n = 1 patient with chronic lymphocytic inflammation with pontine perivascular enhancement responsive to steroids (CLIPPERS), n = 3 patients with infectious BE (tuberculosis (TB), listeria monocytogenes, bacterial clival osteomyelitis).

With BBE representing the CNS subtype of MFS, we next investigated BBE patients in comparison to MFS (n = 7), GBS/MFS overlap (n = 7) and GBS (n = 98) patients, likewise treated at the Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany between January 2002 and September 2017 (Fig. 1).

Figure 1View larger versionFigure 1. Study design. Our retrospective study approach to systematically evaluate the prevalence of AP syndrome in BE, including BBE in all consecutive patients treated at our university hospital during a 15‐year period is depicted. BBE was compared to GBS and MFS.

Patients were identified by a database search of our hospital information system (ORBIS software, Agfa HealthCare, Bonn, Germany) for patients with a discharge diagnosis of DRG G61.0 (including GBS and MFS) between January 2002 and September 2017 followed by a review of each patient record. For diagnosis of GBS, MFS, their subtypes and overlapping conditions, we applied clinical diagnostic criteria as proposed by the GBS classification group22 and exclusion of differential diagnoses. Clinical criteria for BBE, the CNS subtype of MFS, were ophthalmoplegia, ataxia, and hypersomnolence. Antiganglioside antibody (asialoganglioside GM1, gangliosides GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b) testing was performed in several patients, though it was not mandatory for diagnosis of GBS, MFS and its variants according to the diagnostic criteria.22 Timing of antibody testing in relation to treatment was indicated. In a BBE patient with AP syndrome (patient 6), we additionally investigated the evolution of anti‐ganglioside antibody titers before and after treatment.

Demographic and clinical data (pathogenic antibodies, MRI brainstem lesions, treatment) were extracted from patients’ records, deidentified, and entered into password‐protected databases. All patients received a thorough differential diagnosis clarification (laboratory screening including serum analysis for HIV, syphilis, borreliosis, rheumatism, and sarcoidosis). Patients’ records and MRI images were screened by a board‐certified neuroradiologist (MME) for suggestive clinical and MRI characteristics to rule out NMO/NMOSD according to the international consensus diagnostic criteria.18

Variables for diagnosis of AP syndrome

Variables to assess incomplete (1–2 symptoms) or complete AP syndrome were otherwise unexplained, intractable nausea, emesis, and singultus1 mentioned in patient records at or after onset of neurological symptoms, without additional non‐CNS symptoms. Since confusion of AP syndrome with gastrointestinal disorders was a potential bias, we screened patient records for suggestive clinical or laboratory signs and verified that intractable nausea and emesis occurred concomitantly with and not prior to the onset of neurological features to rule out an infection. In patients meeting our criteria for AP syndrome without being described as such, we included the original symptom evaluation.

Follow‐up and statistical analysis

Follow‐up data regarding remission of neurological deficits and AP syndrome were extracted retrospectively from follow‐up appointments documented in patient records in an observation period up to January 2018. Missing or incomplete follow‐up data was indicated. Descriptive statistics (median, 25‐to‐75% interquartile range (IQR) and percentages) were used to summarize demographics.

Results

AP syndrome in brainstem encephalitis

In total, 8 of 21 (38.1%) BE patients (median age 51, IQR 36–62 years) showed incomplete (n = 6, 28.6%) or complete (n = 2, 9.5%) AP syndrome (Tables 1 and 2). AP syndrome was also observed in BE patients (patients 3 and 6) without MRI brainstem lesions (Table 1). Images of two representative patients (patients 2 and 4) with typical MRI brainstem lesions in the context of BE were depicted (Fig. 2). Follow‐up data showed complete remission (CR) in most patients (Table 1). Patient 6 achieved marked yet incomplete remission (IR) up to death from sepsis after 2 months of observation. Patient 7 presented IR after 5 months of follow‐up, although further improvement could be expected under antibiotic therapy.

See full tableTable 1. Characteristics of brainstem encephalitis patients with AP syndrome

See full tableTable 2. Characteristics of brainstem encephalitis patients without AP syndrome

Figure 2View larger versionFigure 2. Representative MRI findings of BE patients. Representative MRI images of BE patients showing (A) marked hyperintense brainstem lesions in T2‐weighted images as a sign of inflammation (red circles) in patient 2 with autoimmune BE and (B) mild pontine inflammatory lesions (red circles and arrows) in patient 4 with BBE. After application of Gadolinium‐containing contrast agent no enhancement can be observed in both patients.

AP syndrome in GBS and its subtypes

In this study, 3 of 7 (42.9%) BBE patients (median age 63, IQR 59–65 years) demonstrated AP syndrome (Table 1). Additionally, 4/112 (3.6%) patients with GBS variants without brainstem dysfunction (Tables 3 and 4) showed AP syndrome (n = 98 GBS (median age 52, IQR 36–62 years), n = 7 MFS (median age 53, IQR 31.5–75.5 years), n = 7 GBS/MFS overlap (median age 54, IQR 45.5–67.5 years) patients)). Although there was no clinical, radiological and/or electrophysiological brainstem involvement in these patients and supportive diagnostics (CSF, nerve conduction studies) pointed toward GBS or GBS/MFS, mild CNS involvement within the clinical continuum of GBS variants could not be fully excluded. Patient 24 presented nearly CR at discharge after 1 week of observation with no further follow‐up data available; therefore, CR is conceivable. Patient 25 showed IR after 3 months of follow‐up and further improvement was expected.

See full tableTable 3. Characteristics of Guillain‐Barré syndrome patients with AP syndrome

See full tableTable 4. Frequency of AP syndrome in subtypes of Guillain–Barré syndrome

Underrecognition and misdiagnosis of AP syndrome

AP syndrome was indicated in the medical records of only 2/12 (16.7%) patients, but unrecognized (n = 4, 33.3%) or misdiagnosed (n = 6, 50%) in the majority of patients. Most frequently (n = 5, 41.7%), symptoms were attributed to gastroenteritis (Tables 1 and 3) even though there were no supportive signs indicating an infection and symptom onset was concomitant with and not prior to the onset of the other neurological deficits making AP syndrome more probable.

Outcome

AP syndrome, usually occurring simultaneously with the other neurological symptoms, generally responded well to causal and symptomatic treatment with most patients showing CR. In patient 6 (Tables 1 and 5), we established an antiemetic treatment regime comprising the 5‐HT3‐receptor antagonist granisetrone, the Neurokinin‐1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist aprepitant, dexamethasone, and haloperidol. Combined with combinational causal treatment with IVMP (1 g/day for 5 days), IVIGs (3 × 10 g/day for 5 days) and 12 cycles of plasmapheresis, we observed marked improvement of general wellbeing and the neurological condition including AP syndrome correlating with a decrease of anti‐ganglioside antibodies (Table 5). Because of the significant impact of AP syndrome on patients’ moods, concomitant anti‐depressant treatment (duloxetine) was necessary. Despite marked improvement of neurological deficits and AP syndrome in a follow‐up period of 2 months, patient 6 died unexpectedly of fulminant sepsis acquired during the postdischarge period.

See full tableTable 5. Anti‐ganglioside antibody titers in a patient with Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis and AP syndrome

Discussion

AP syndrome1 originates from complex pathophysiologic mechanisms triggered by several different pathologies. Besides structural AP lesions, there is growing evidence that pathogenic antibodies in AQP‐4 IgG–seropositive NMO/NMOSD12, 13, 14, 15 or GABA‐B‐receptor antibodies in paraneoplastic BE21 might trigger AP syndrome. This hypothesis might be supported by the findings of this retrospective study. We showed that AP syndrome is a frequent but often mis‐ or undiagnosed clinical feature of BE. Manifestation of AP syndrome did not require MRI brainstem lesions in our cohort, being in line with drug‐related AP syndrome3, 28, 29 or a study investigating 62 symptomatic BBE patients that showed MRI abnormalities in only 30% of the cases and even less in BBE patients with overlapping GBS.30 A brain autopsy of a BBE patient without evident MRI brainstem lesions did however reveal perivascular lymphocytic infiltration and edema,30 which might also apply to patients of our cohort without suggestive MRI abnormalities. Interestingly, we observed AP syndrome in individual patients with GBS and GBS/MFS (Tables 3 and 4) as clinical subtypes without brainstem dysfunction in contrast to BBE, the latter representing the CNS subtype of MFS. Out of these, in only 4 out of the total of 112 patients with GBS, GBS/MFS overlap and MFS (Tables 3 and 4), did AP syndrome occur simultaneously to the onset of the other neurological symptoms and generally responded well to causal treatment with IVIG. Besides the much lower prevalence of AP syndrome in contrast to BBE (Table 1), we further observed a milder manifestation without the development of a complete AP syndrome, including intractable nausea, emesis, and singultus1 in the affected patients with GBS and GBS/MFS. Given the clinicopathological continuum of GBS, MFS and its variants, including BBE,24 mild CNS involvement in the aforementioned patients can not be fully excluded, although, there was no supportive clinical, electrophysiologic, or radiographic evidence for brainstem involvement. The clinical variations of distinct GBS and MFS subtypes might be related to the locoregional distribution of different ganglioside species 22, 31 in glial and neuronal membranes of PNS and CNS accessible to circulating anti‐ganglioside antibodies that provoke a complex inflammatory response.32 Although topospecific mapping of brain gangliosides is challenging, as demonstrated in animal models, a spatial distribution could be detected demonstrating a predominant expression of certain ganglioside species in the brainstem and periaqueductal grey area (GD1, GT1, GT3, GQ1).33 Due to technical limitations, there are only a few single patient or small cohort studies on human fetal CNS focusing on predefined regions like the hippocampus34, 35 or the cerebellum.36 The detection of ganglioside species in close proximity to the AP33 together with limited experimental and histopathologic data 12, 14 and our clinical observations indicate a potential role of pathogenic anti‐ganglioside antibodies in AP syndrome. Clearly, these findings should be confirmed in larger cohorts of prospective future studies, since the retrospective approach was a limitation in terms of the accuracy of clinical evaluation. The exploration of the functional mechanisms of a potential impact of autoimmune antibodies on the AP's CTZ should be a focus for future studies. However, antibody testing (especially for anti‐AQP‐4‐IgG but also anti‐ganglioside antibodies) appears useful in patients with AP syndrome to detect underlying autoimmune disorders that would warrant respective treatment. It could especially be useful for patients without evident MRI brainstem lesions or additional sings of brainstem dysfunction. Since antibody titers can be inconclusive, depending on the timing of the analysis in relation to therapy initiation (Table 5) and some BBE patients are even seronegative for canonical anti‐GQ1b antibodies,30 we recommend a broad screening for anti‐ganglioside antibodies (Table 5) expressed in different GBS subtypes24 prior to the initiation of causal therapies. Although not mandatory for diagnosis of GBS and its variants,22 the inconsistency of extent and timing of antibody testing was a limitation in our retrospective study and might also explain the relatively high rate of BBE patients without detection of anti‐GQ1b antibodies in our cohort. Semiologic overlap of AP syndrome with non‐CNS disorders leads to nonrecognition and misdiagnosis. The severe impact on patients’ wellbeing (aspiration, malnutrition, electrolyte disorders, serious mood disorders) caused by AP syndrome should be a reason for identifying trigger diseases, particularly because AP syndrome is an easily treatable syndrome if identified correctly. AP syndrome should be considered in any episode of otherwise unexplained and intractable nausea, emesis or singultus, especially in combination with neurological deficits indicating brainstem dysfunction. We recommend contrast‐enhanced brain MRI, CSF analysis, neurophysiological examination in addition to anti‐ganglioside and anti‐AQP‐4‐IgG antibody testing, the latter to rule out NMO/NMOSD as a common trigger for AP syndrome.12, 13, 14, 15 Besides causal treatment, a multimodal anti‐emetic concept is crucial for the management of AP syndrome. Due to its manifold triggers and complex pathophysiology, there are no specific studies or treatment guidelines. However, there is some evidence from drug‐induced AP syndrome.3 We emphasize the importance of a multimodal combinational therapy targeting the CTZ2: besides 5‐HT3‐receptor antagonists with major effects on peripheral vagal afferents, NK1R‐receptor antagonists are effective and well‐established antiemetic agents acting in the brainstem. Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol is likewise reported to target emetic brainstem centers. Furthermore, a case study reports the effects of low‐dose amitriptyline in GBS with conceivable AP syndrome.25

Our findings suggest that neurologists should be aware of the occurrence of AP syndrome as a relevant but yet under‐recognized clinical characteristic of BE at a percentage level of 38.1% in our cohort, demonstrating a significant impact on patients’ wellbeing. From our observations in BBE, MFS, and GBS patients, a pathophysiologic role of autoimmune antibodies is conceivable and should be investigated in further studies.

Author Contributions

Concept and design of study: PSZ and WP. Acquisition and analysis of data: PSZ, AB, MME, HS, and WP. Drafting of the manuscript: PSZ and WP.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Supplementary Material

Open In Web Browser

Acknowledgment

PSZ was supported by an intramural young scientist stipend (“Nachwuchsforscher”) of the medical faculty of Goethe University during the conduct of the study. A native speaker checked the manuscript for grammar, punctuation and language.

Articles from Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology are provided here courtesy of Wiley-Blackwell

PMC Copyright Notice

The articles available from the PMC site are protected by copyright, even though access is free. Copyright is held by the respective authors or publishers who provide these articles to PMC. Users of PMC are responsible for complying with the terms and conditions defined by the copyright holder.

Users should assume that standard copyright protection applies to articles in PMC, unless an article contains an explicit license statement that gives a user additional reuse or redistribution rights. PMC does not allow automated/bulk downloading of articles that have standard copyright protection.

See the copyright notice on the PMC site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/, for further details and specific exceptions.

References

Dubey D, Pittock SJ, Krecke KN, Flanagan EP. Association of extension of cervical cord lesion and area postrema syndrome with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74:359–361.28097302

Hornby PJ. Central neurocircuitry associated with emesis. Am J Med 2001;111(Suppl 8A):106S–112S.11749934

Becker DE. Nausea, vomiting, and hiccups: a review of mechanisms and treatment. Anesth Prog 2010;57:150–156.21174569

Duvernoy HM, Risold PY. The circumventricular organs: an atlas of comparative anatomy and vascularization. Brain Res Rev 2007;56:119–147.17659349

Price CJ, Hoyda TD, Ferguson AV. The area postrema: a brain monitor and integrator of systemic autonomic state. Neuroscientist 2008;14:182–194.18079557

Miyata S. New aspects in fenestrated capillary and tissue dynamics in the sensory circumventricular organs of adult brains. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:390.26578857

Perwitasari DA, Gelderblom H, Atthobari J, et al. Anti‐emetic drugs in oncology: pharmacology and individualization by pharmacogenetics. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:33–43.21365391

Abecassis IJ, Smith T, Chandler JP. Brain tumors and the area postrema. J Clin Neurosci 2013;20:1795–1797.24035420

Bernstein IL, Courtney L, Braget DJ. Estrogens and the Leydig LTW(m) tumor syndrome: anorexia and diet aversions attenuated by area postrema lesions. Physiol Behav 1986;38:159–163.3467386

Mittelbronn M, Wolff M, Bültmann E, et al. Disseminating anaplastic brainstem oligodendroglioma associated with allelic loss in the tumor suppressor candidate region D19S246 of chromosome 19 mimicking an inflammatory central nervous system disease in a 9‐year‐old boy. Hum Pathol 2005;36:854–857.16084959

Parbel S, Vlaho S, Gebhardt B, et al. Diagnostic difficulties in encephalitis and glioma. Klin Padiatr 2007;219:222–224.16865652

Apiwattanakul M, Popescu BF, Matiello M, et al. Intractable vomiting as the initial presentation of neuromyelitis optica. Ann Neurol 2010;68:757–761.21031587

Misu T, Fujihara K, Nakashima I, et al. Intractable hiccup and nausea with periaqueductal lesions in neuromyelitis optica. Neurology 2005;65:1479–1482.16275842

Popescu BF, Lennon VA, Parisi JE, et al. Neuromyelitis optica unique area postrema lesions: nausea, vomiting, and pathogenic implications. Neurology 2011;76:1229–1237.21368286

Takahashi T, Miyazawa I, Misu T, et al. Intractable hiccup and nausea in neuromyelitis optica with anti‐aquaporin‐4 antibody: a herald of acute exacerbations. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:1075–1078.18420727

Guo QF, Song DD, Wang QQ, et al. The clinical analyses of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder initially presenting with area postrema syndrome in 14 patients. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi 2017;56:358–362.28460507

Hyun JW, Jeong IH, Joung A, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Neurology 2016;86:1772–1779.27164713

Wingerchuk DM, Banwell B, Bennett JL, et al. International Panel for NMO Diagnosis. International consensus diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurology 2015;85:177–189.26092914

Vila‐Bedmar S, Ostos‐Moliz F, Camacho‐Salas A. Pediatric multiple sclerosis presenting as area postrema syndrome. Pediatr Neurol 2017;70:83–84.28286009

Iorio R, Damato V, Mirabella M, et al. Distinctive clinical and neuroimaging characteristics of longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis associated with aquaporin‐4 autoantibodies. J Neurol 2013;260:2396–2402.23793787

Mundiyanapurath S, Jarius S, Probst C, et al. GABA‐B‐receptor antibodies in paraneoplastic brainstem encephalitis. J Neuroimmunol 2013;259:88–91.23628208

Wakerley BR, Uncini A, Yuki N. Guillain‐barré and miller fisher syndromes–new diagnostic classification. Nat Rev Neurol 2014;10:537–544.25072194

Wakerley BR, Yuki N. Atypical Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis: pitfalls of diagnosis. Pediatr Neurol 2013;49:e9.23953997

Sekiguchi Y, Mori M, Misawa S, et al. How often and when fisher syndrome is overlapped by guillain‐barré syndrome or Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis? Eur J Neurol 2016;23:1058–1063.26969889

Hong SJ, Choe BH. A case of visceral autonomic neuropathy complicated by guillain‐barre syndrome accompanied with cyclic vomiting syndrome‐like disorder in a child. Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr. 2015;18:128–133.26157699

Doan N, Rozansky G, Nguyen HS, et al. Granulomatous amebic encephalitis following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(Suppl 18):S459–S462.26539322

Yılmaz PÖ, Mutlu NM, Sertçelik A, et al. Linezolid and dexamethasone experience in a serious case of listeria rhombencephalitis. J Infect Public Health. 2016;9:670–674.26860968

Roila F, Hesketh PJ, Herrstedt J Antiemetic Subcommitte of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer . Prevention of chemotherapy‐ and radiotherapy‐induced emesis: results of the 2004 Perugia International Antiemetic Consensus Conference. Ann Oncol 2006;17:20–28.16314401

Qian W, Cai X, Wang Y, et al. Effect of gingerol on cisplatin‐induced pica analogous to emesis via modulating expressions of dopamine 2 receptor, dopamine transporter and tyrosine hydroxylase in the vomiting model of rats. Yonago Acta Med. 2016;59:100–110.27493480

Odaka M, Yuki N, Yamada M, et al. Bickerstaff's brainstem encephalitis: clinical features of 62 cases and a subgroup associated with Guillain‐Barré syndrome. Brain 2003;126(Pt 10):2279–2290.12847079

Shahrizaila N, Yuki N. Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis and fisher syndrome: anti‐GQ1b antibody syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84:576–583.22984203

Willison HJ. Gangliosides as targets for autoimmune injury to the nervous system. J Neurochem 2007;103(Suppl 1):143–149.17986149

Colsch B, Jackson SN, Dutta S, Woods AS. Molecular microscopy of brain gangliosides: illustrating their distribution in hippocampal cell layers. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2011;2:213–222.21961052

Sarbu M, Vukelić Ž, Clemmer DE, Zamfir AD. Electrospray ionization ion mobility mass spectrometry provides novel insights into the pattern and activity of fetal hippocampus gangliosides. Biochimie 2017;139:81–94.28554572

Vukelić Z, Zarei M, Peter‐Katalinić J, Zamfir AD. Analysis of human hippocampus gangliosides by fully‐automated chip‐based nanoelectrospray tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2006;1130:238–245.16797567

Zamfir A, Vukelić Z, Bindila L, et al. Fully‐automated chip‐based nanoelectrospray tandem mass spectrometry of gangliosides from human cerebellum. Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2004;15:1649–1657.

[Back]

Figure 1.

Study design. Our retrospective study approach to systematically evaluate the prevalence of AP syndrome in BE, including BBE in all consecutive patients treated at our university hospital during a 15‐year period is depicted. BBE was compared to GBS and MFS.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 1.

Characteristics of brainstem encephalitis patients with AP syndrome

Nr.
Sex
Age
Entity
Nausea/ emesis/ singultus
Original symptom evaluation
Autoimmune antibodies
MRI
Tx
O (month)

1
m
33
autoimmune
y/n/n
NA
NA
y
IVMP
CR (2)

2
m
54
autoimmune
y/y/n
NA
NAGQ1b neg.
y
IVMP
CR (4)

3
f
51
autoimmune,
possible SLE
y/y/n
NA
NAdsDNA, ANA, APL pos., GQ1b neg.
y
OP
AZA
IVMP
IR (4)

4
m
54
BBE/GBS
y/y/y
GE
²GQ1b neg.
y
IVMP
IVIG
12xPP
CR (7)

5
m
63
BBE
y/y/n
GE
²GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b neg.
y
IVMP
9xPP
CR (1)

6
m
66
BBE
y/y/y
correct
¹GM1 (118%), GM2 (45%), GD1a (115%), GD1b(175%), Asialo‐GM1 (45%), GQ1b neg.
n
IVMP
IVIG
12xPP
IR (2)a

7
f
58
bacterial
clival
osteomyelitis
y/y/n
correct
NA
y
AB
IR (5)b

8
m
42
TB
y/y/n
vestibulo pathy
NA
y
AB
IR (3)

Clinical data of patients with BE and manifestation of AP syndrome are depicted. AB, antibiotics; AP, area postrema; AZA, azathioprine; BBE, Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis; BE, brainstem encephalitis; CR, complete remission; f, female; GE, gastroenteritis; IR, incomplete remission; IVMP, intravenous methylprednisolone; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; m, male; MRI, Magnetic resonance imaging; n, no; NA, not available; neg., negative; OP, oral prednisone; pos, positive; PP, plasmapheresis; SLE, Systemic lupus erythematosus; TB, tuberculosis; Tx, treatment; y, yes.

MRI: MRI brainstem lesions.

Autoimmune antibodies: Timing of antibody testing ¹ = pretreatment, ² = posttreatment, NA = not available.

a. IR until death of sepsis after 2 months of follow‐up.

b. IR in 01/2018 after 5 months of follow‐up, further improvement expected under AB therapy.

Copyright © John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

[Back]

[Back]

Table 2.

Characteristics of brainstem encephalitis patients without AP syndrome

Nr.
Sex
Age
Entity
Autoimmune antibodies
MRI
Tx

9
m
22
autoimmune
NA
y
IVMP

10
f
47
autoimmune
NA
y
IVMP

11
m
33
autoimmune
NA
y
IVMP

12
f
26
autoimmune
¹GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b, Asiaolo‐GM1 neg.
n
OP, IVMP, 6xPP

13
f
62
autoimmune
NA
y
OP, IVMP, 9xPP, AZA

14
f
36
autoimmune,
suspected SLE
²dsDNA, ANA, SSA, SSB, nRNP, Scl‐70, Jo‐1 pos., GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b neg.
y
OP, IVMP, IVIG, 12xPP, CP

15
f
76
BBE/GBS
²GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b neg.
n
IVIG, 12xPP

16
m
62
BBE
NAGQ1b neg.
y
OP

17
m
64
BBE
¹GQ1b (340%), GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b neg.
y
IVMP, 12xPP

18
f
56
BBE
²Asialo‐GM1 (54%), GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b neg.
n
OP, IVMP, IVIG

19
f
39
Morvan's syndrome
²VGKC pos., GM1, GD1a, GD1b pos., GM2, GQ1b neg.
n
OP, IVIG, 12xPP, RTX, CP

20
m
33
CLIPPERS
NA
y
OP, IVMP

21
f
38
listeria
NA
y
AB

Clinical data of patients with BE without manifestation of AP syndrome are depicted. AB, antibiotics; AP, area postrema; BBE, Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis; BE, brainstem encephalitis; CLIPPERS, chronic lymphocytic inflammation with pontine perivascular enhancement responsive to steroids; CP, cyclophosphamide; f, female; IVMP, intravenous methylprednisolone; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; m, male; MRI, Magnetic resonance imaging; n, no; NA, not available; OP, oral prednisone; PP, plasmapheresis; RTX, rituximab; SLE, Systemic lupus erythematosus; Tx, treatment; y, yes.

MRI: MRI brainstem lesions.

Autoimmune antibodies: Timing of antibody testing ¹ = pre‐treatment, ² = posttreatment, NA = not available.

Copyright © John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

[Back]

[Back]

Figure 2.

Representative MRI findings of BE patients. Representative MRI images of BE patients showing (A) marked hyperintense brainstem lesions in T2‐weighted images as a sign of inflammation (red circles) in patient 2 with autoimmune BE and (B) mild pontine inflammatory lesions (red circles and arrows) in patient 4 with BBE. After application of Gadolinium‐containing contrast agent no enhancement can be observed in both patients.

[Back]

[Back]

Table 3.

Characteristics of Guillain‐Barré syndrome patients with AP syndrome

Nr.
Sex
Age
GBS variant
Nausea/ emesis/ singultus
Original symptom evaluation
Autoimmune antibodies
MRI
Tx
O (month)

22
f
38
GBS/MFS
y/y/n
GE
NA
NA
IVIG
CR (12)

23
f
54
GBS/MFS
y/y/n
GE
²GM1 (36%), GM2 (42%), GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b neg.
n
IVIG
6xPP
IR
(years)

24
m
21
GBS
y/y/n
GE
NA
NA
IVIG
NAa

25
f
56
GBS
y/y/n
NA
²GM1, GM2, GD1a, GD1b, GQ1b, Asiaolo‐GM1 neg.
n
IVIG
12xPP
IR (3)b

Clinical data of GBS and GBS/MFS patients with manifestation of AP syndrome are depicted. AP, area postrema; CR, complete remission; f, female; GBS, Guillain–Barré syndrome; IR, incomplete remission; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; m, male; MRI, Magnetic resonance imaging; n, no; NA, not available; O, outcome; PP, plasmapheresis; Tx, treatment; y, yes. MRI: MRI brainstem lesions.

Autoimmune antibodies: Timing of antibody testing ¹ = pre‐treatment, ² = posttreatment, NA = not available.

IR after 1 week of follow‐up, no further follow‐up data available, CR expected.

IR in 01/2018 after 3 months of follow‐up, further improvement expected.

Copyright © John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

[Back]

[Back]

Table 4.

Frequency of AP syndrome in subtypes of Guillain–Barré syndrome

Variable | Total (n = 119), n (%) or median (25–75%) | BBE (n = 7), n (%) or median (25–75%) | MFS (n = 7), n (%) or median (25–75%) | GBS/MFS (n = 7), n (%) or median (25–75%) | GBS (n = 98), n (%) or median (25–75%)
Male sex | 84 (70.6) | 5 (71.4) | 5 (71.4) | 5 (71.4) | 69 (70.4)
Age, y | 53 (37.75–63.25) | 63 (59–65) | 53 (31.5–75.5) | 54 (45.5–67.5) | 52 (36–62)
AP syndrome | 7 (5.9) | 3 (42.9) | 0 (0) | 2 (28.6) | 2 (2)

Demographic data and frequency of AP syndrome in the total patient cohort and in the subcohorts of BBE, MFS, GBS/MFS overlap and GBS patients are depicted. AP, area postrema; BBE, Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis; GBS, Guillain–Barré syndrome; MFS, Miller Fisher syndrome; GBS/MFS, GBS/MFS overlap; y, years.

Copyright © John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

[Back]

[Back]

Table 5.

Anti‐ganglioside antibody titers in a patient with Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis and AP syndrome

Anti‐ganglioside antibody | Pretreatment‐titer (%) | Posttreatment titer (%)
Asialoganglioside GM1 | 45 | <30
Ganglioside GM1 | 118 | 33
Ganglioside GM2 | 45 | <30
Ganglioside GD1a | 115 | 36
Ganglioside GD1b | 157 | 41
Ganglioside GQ1b | <30 | <30

Evolution of serum anti‐ganglioside antibody titers in patient 6 before and after treatment with 5 × 1 g intravenous methylprednisolone, 5 × 30 g IVIG and 12 cycles of plasmapheresis (reference: <30% = negative, 30–50% = borderline, 51–100% = positive, 100% = highly positive).

Copyright © John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

[Back]