Background and ObjectivesTo investigate CSF findings in relation to clinical and electrodiagnostic subtypes, severity, and outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) based on 1,500 patients in the... Show moreBackground and ObjectivesTo investigate CSF findings in relation to clinical and electrodiagnostic subtypes, severity, and outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) based on 1,500 patients in the International GBS Outcome Study.MethodsAlbuminocytologic dissociation (ACD) was defined as an increased protein level (>0.45 g/L) in the absence of elevated white cell count (<50 cells/μL). We excluded 124 (8%) patients because of other diagnoses, protocol violation, or insufficient data. The CSF was examined in 1,231 patients (89%).ResultsIn 846 (70%) patients, CSF examination showed ACD, which increased with time from weakness onset: ≤4 days 57%, >4 days 84%. High CSF protein levels were associated with a demyelinating subtype, proximal or global muscle weakness, and a reduced likelihood of being able to run at week 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.25–0.70; p = 0.001) and week 4 (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27–0.72; p = 0.001). Patients with the Miller Fisher syndrome, distal predominant weakness, and normal or equivocal nerve conduction studies were more likely to have lower CSF protein levels. CSF cell count was <5 cells/μL in 1,005 patients (83%), 5–49 cells/μL in 200 patients (16%), and ≥50 cells/μL in 13 patients (1%).DiscussionACD is a common finding in GBS, but normal protein levels do not exclude this diagnosis. High CSF protein level is associated with an early severe disease course and a demyelinating subtype. Elevated CSF cell count, rarely ≥50 cells/μL, is compatible with GBS after a thorough exclusion of alternative diagnoses. Show less
Arends, S.; Drenthen, J.; Bergh, P. van den; Franssen, H.; Hadden, R.D.M.; Islam, B.; ... ; Cornblath, D.R. 2022
Objective: To describe the heterogeneity of electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies in Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) patients collected as part of the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS). Methods:... Show moreObjective: To describe the heterogeneity of electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies in Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) patients collected as part of the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS). Methods: Prospectively collected clinical and EDx data were available in 957 IGOS patients from 115 centers. Only the first EDx study was included in the current analysis. Results: Median timing of the EDx study was 7 days (interquartile range 4-11) from symptom onset. Methodology varied between centers, countries and regions. Reference values from the responding 103 centers were derived locally in 49%, from publications in 37% and from a combination of these in the remaining 15%. Amplitude measurement in the EDx studies (baseline-to-peak or peak-to-peak) differed from the way this was done in the reference values, in 22% of motor and 39% of sensory conduction. There was marked variability in both motor and sensory reference values, although only a few outliers accounted for this. Conclusions: Our study showed extensive variation in the clinical practice of EDx in GBS patients among IGOS centers across the regions. Significance: Besides EDx variation in GBS patients participating in IGOS, this diversity is likely to be present in other neuromuscular disorders and centers. This underlines the need for standardization of EDx in future multinational GBS studies.(c) 2022 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Objective To compare the disease course in patients with mild Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) who were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or supportive care only.Methods We selected... Show moreObjective To compare the disease course in patients with mild Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) who were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or supportive care only.Methods We selected patients from the prospective observational International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) who were able to walk independently at study entry (mild GBS), treated with one IVIg course or supportive care. The primary endpoint was the GBS disability score four weeks after study entry, assessed by multivariable ordinal regression analysis.Results Of 188 eligible patients, 148 (79%) were treated with IVIg and 40 (21%) with supportive care. The IVIg group was more disabled at baseline. IVIg treatment was not associated with lower GBS disability scores at 4 weeks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.13). Nearly all secondary endpoints showed no benefit from IVIg, although the time to regain full muscle strength was shorter (28 vs 56 days, p=0.03) and reported pain at 26 weeks was lower (n=26/121, 22% vs n=12/30, 40%, p=0.04) in the IVIg treated patients. In the subanalysis with persistent mild GBS in the first 2 weeks, the aOR for a lower GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 2.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 7.13). At 1 year, 40% of all patients had residual symptoms.Conclusion In patients with mild GBS, one course of IVIg did not improve the overall disease course. The certainty of this conclusion is limited by confounding factors, selection bias and wide confidence limits. Residual symptoms were often present after one year, indicating the need for better treatments in mild GBS. Show less
Walgaard, C.; Jacobs, B.C.; Lingsma, H.F.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Berg, B. van den; Doets, A.Y.; ... ; Dutch GBS Study Grp 2021
Background Treatment with one standard dose (2 g/kg) of intravenous immunoglobulin is insufficient in a proportion of patients with severe Guillain-Barre syndrome. Worldwide, around 25% of patients... Show moreBackground Treatment with one standard dose (2 g/kg) of intravenous immunoglobulin is insufficient in a proportion of patients with severe Guillain-Barre syndrome. Worldwide, around 25% of patients severely affected with the syndrome are given a second intravenous immunoglobulin dose (SID), although it has not been proven effective. We aimed to investigate whether a SID is effective in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome with a predicted poor outcome.Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SID-GBS), we included patients (>= 12 years) with Guillain-Barre syndrome admitted to one of 59 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were included on the first day of standard intravenous immunoglobulin treatment (2 g/kg over 5 days). Only patients with a poor prognosis (score of >= 6) according to the modified Erasmus Guillain-Barre syndrome Outcome Score were randomly assigned, via block randomisation stratified by centre, to SID (2 g/kg over 5 days) or to placebo, 7-9 days after inclusion. Patients, outcome adjudicators, monitors, and the steering committee were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the Guillain-Barre syndrome disability score 4 weeks after inclusion. All patients in whom allocated trial medication was started were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.Findings Between Feb 16, 2010, and June 5, 2018, 327 of 339 patients assessed for eligibility were included. 112 had a poor prognosis. Of those, 93 patients with a poor prognosis were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 (53%) received SID and 44 (47%) received placebo. The adjusted common odds ratio for improvement on the Guillain-Barre syndrome disability score at 4 weeks was 1.4 (95% CI 0.6-3.3; p=0.45). Patients given SID had more serious adverse events (35% vs 16% in the first 30 days), including thromboembolic events, than those in the placebo group. Four patients died in the intervention group (13-24 weeks after randomisation).Interpretation Our study does not provide evidence that patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome with a poor prognosis benefit from a second intravenous immunoglobulin course; moreover, it entails a risk of serious adverse events. Therefore, a second intravenous immunoglobulin course should not be considered for treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome because of a poor prognosis. The results indicate the need for treatment trials with other immune modulators in patients severely affected by Guillain-Barre syndrome. Funding Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds and Sanquin Plasma Products. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Schaik, I.N. van; Mielke, O.; Bril, V.; Geloven, N. van; Hartung, H.P.; Lewis, R.A.; ... ; PATH Study Grp 2019
ObjectiveTo define the current treatment practice of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS).MethodsThe study was based on prospective observational data from the first 1,300 patients included in the... Show moreObjectiveTo define the current treatment practice of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS).MethodsThe study was based on prospective observational data from the first 1,300 patients included in the International GBS Outcome Study. We described the treatment practice of GBS in general, and for (1) severe forms (unable to walk independently), (2) no recovery after initial treatment, (3) treatment-related fluctuations, (4) mild forms (able to walk independently), and (5) variant forms including Miller Fisher syndrome, taking patient characteristics and hospital type into account.ResultsWe excluded 88 (7%) patients because of missing data, protocol violation, or alternative diagnosis. Patients from Bangladesh (n = 189, 15%) were described separately because 83% were not treated. IV immunoglobulin (IVIg), plasma exchange (PE), or other immunotherapy was provided in 941 (92%) of the remaining 1,023 patients, including patients with severe GBS (724/743, 97%), mild GBS (126/168, 75%), Miller Fisher syndrome (53/70, 76%), and other variants (33/40, 83%). Of 235 (32%) patients who did not improve after their initial treatment, 82 (35%) received a second immune modulatory treatment. A treatment-related fluctuation was observed in 53 (5%) of 1,023 patients, of whom 36 (68%) were re-treated with IVIg or PE.ConclusionsIn current practice, patients with mild and variant forms of GBS, or with treatment-related fluctuations and treatment failures, are frequently treated, even in absence of trial data to support this choice. The variability in treatment practice can be explained in part by the lack of evidence and guidelines for effective treatment in these situations. Show less
