Multifocal leukoencephalopathy in cocaine users: a report of two cases and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cocaine abuse is associated with several mechanisms of brain injury including ischemic, hemorrhagic and metabolic. Recently two case reports of leukoencephalopathy in cocaine users implicated a commonly used cocaine adulterant, levamisole. One well-documented adverse effect of levamisole, when used alone as antihelminthic or immunomodulatory drug, is multifocal inflammatory leukoencephalopathy. Therefore, immune mechanisms may also contribute to cocaine-induced brain injury. CASE PRESENTATIONS: Two cocaine users with multifocal leukoencephalopathy, treated with steroids and plasmapheresis, are described. The first is a 25-year-old man who presented with unilateral motor and sensory impairment progressing to bilateral deficits, dysphagia, dysarthria and confusion over several days. Serial MRI showed increasing abnormal FLAIR signal lesions with patchy restricted diffusion and heterogenous enhancement deep in the right and left hemispheres, including periventricular white matter as well as in the pons and cerebellar peduncle. The second patient is a 41-year-old woman who presented with confusion and impaired balance. MRI showed bilateral periventricular FLAIR lesions with scattered restricted diffusion and subtle gadolinium enhancement of some of the lesions. She initially stabilized with supportive care only, but after further cocaine use was re-admitted six weeks later with marked neurological deterioration and MRI showed prominent worsening of the lesions. Both patients received steroid and plasma exchange and showed substantial improvement clinically and on imaging, which was sustained during out-patient follow-up. CONCLUSION: Multifocal leukoencephalopathy associated with cocaine use may have an inflammatory/immune basis, possibly related to levamisole contamination, at least in some patients. Three cases, including the present two, have been described wherein good neurological improvement was seen in association with steroid treatment. However, in the absence of appropriate clinical trials, it remains unknown whether immunotherapy is truly beneficial for these patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".