Current treatment practice of Guillain-Barré syndrome

Objective: To define the current treatment practice of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Methods: The 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. Results: We 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. Conclusions: In 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

Electrodiagnostic subtyping in Guillain–Barr\ue9 syndrome patients in the International Guillain–Barr\ue9 Outcome Study

\ua9 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.Background and purpose: Various electrodiagnostic criteria have been developed in Guillain–Barr\ue9 syndrome (GBS). Their performance in a broad representation of GBS patients has not been evaluated. Motor conduction data from the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) cohort were used to compare two widely used criterion sets and relate these to diagnostic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis criteria. Methods: From the first 1500 patients in IGOS, nerve conduction studies from 1137 (75.8%) were available for the current study. These patients were classified according to nerve conduction studies criteria proposed by Hadden and Rajabally. Results: Of the 1137 studies, 68.3% (N = 777) were classified identically according to criteria by Hadden and Rajabally: 111 (9.8%) axonal, 366 (32.2%) demyelinating, 195 (17.2%) equivocal, 35 (3.1%) inexcitable and 70 (6.2%) normal. Thus, 360 studies (31.7%) were classified differently. The areas of differences were as follows: 155 studies (13.6%) classified as demyelinating by Hadden and axonal by Rajabally; 122 studies (10.7%) classified as demyelinating by Hadden and equivocal by Rajabally; and 75 studies (6.6%) classified as equivocal by Hadden and axonal by Rajabally. Due to more strictly defined cutoffs fewer patients fulfilled demyelinating criteria by Rajabally than by Hadden, making more patients eligible for axonal or equivocal classification by Rajabally. In 234 (68.6%) axonal studies by Rajabally the revised El Escorial (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) criteria were fulfilled; in axonal cases by Hadden this was 1.8%. Conclusions and discussion: This study shows that electrodiagnosis in GBS is dependent on the criterion set utilized, both of which are based on expert opinion. Reappraisal of electrodiagnostic subtyping in GBS is warranted

Original research: Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barr\ue9 syndrome with poor prognosis: the non-randomised ISID study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare disease course in patients with Guillain-Barr\ue9 syndrome (GBS) with a poor prognosis who were treated with one or with two intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) courses. METHODS: From the International GBS Outcome Study, we selected patients whose modified Erasmus GBS Outcome Score at week 1 predicted a poor prognosis. We compared those treated with one IVIg course to those treated with two IVIg courses. The primary endpoint, the GBS disability scale at 4 weeks, was assessed with multivariable ordinal regression. RESULTS: Of 237 eligible patients, 199 patients received a single IVIg course. Twenty patients received an 'early' second IVIg course (1-2 weeks after start of the first IVIg course) and 18 patients a 'late' second IVIg course (2-4 weeks after start of IVIg). At baseline and 1\u2009week, those receiving two IVIg courses were more disabled than those receiving one course. Compared with the one course group, the adjusted OR for a better GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 0.70 (95%CI 0.16 to 3.04) for the early group and 0.66 (95%CI 0.18 to 2.50) for the late group. The secondary endpoints were not in favour of a second IVIg course. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study did not show better outcomes after a second IVIg course in GBS with poor prognosis. The study was limited by small numbers and baseline imbalances. Lack of improvement was likely an incentive to start a second IVIg course. A prospective randomised trial is needed to evaluate whether a second IVIg course improves outcome in GBS

International Guillain-Barré syndrome outcome study: protocol of a prospective observational cohort study on clinical and biological predictors of disease course and outcome in Guillain-Barré syndrome

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy with a highly variable clinical presentation, course, and outcome. The factors that determine the clinical variation of GBS are poorly understood which complicates the care and treatment of individual patients. The protocol of the ongoing International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS), a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study that aims to identify the clinical and biological determinants and predictors of disease onset, subtype, course and outcome of GBS is presented here. Patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for GBS, regardless of age, disease severity, variant forms, or treatment, can participate if included within 2 weeks after onset of weakness. Information about demography, preceding infections, clinical features, diagnostic findings, treatment, course, and outcome is collected. In addition, cerebrospinal fluid and serial blood samples for serum and DNA is collected at standard time points. The original aim was to include at least 1,000 patients with a follow-up of 1-3 years. Data are collected via a web-based data entry system and stored anonymously. IGOS started in May 2012 and by January 2017 included more than 1,400 participants from 143 active centers in 19 countries across 5 continents. The IGOS data/biobank is available for research projects conducted by expertise groups focusing on specific topics including epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, clinimetrics, electrophysiology, antecedent events, antibodies, genetics, prognostic modeling, treatment effects, and long-term outcome of GBS. The IGOS will help to standardize the international collection of data and biosamples for future research of GBS

Regional variation of Guillain-Barré syndrome

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a heterogeneous disorder regarding the clinical presentation, electrophysiological subtype and outcome. Previous single country reports indicate that Guillain-Barré syndrome may differ among regions, but no systematic comparative studies have been conducted. Comparative studies are required to identify factors determining disease susceptibility, variation and prognosis, and to improve diagnostic criteria. The International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study is a prospective, observational cohort study including all patients within the diagnostic spectrum, aiming to describe the heterogeneity of Guillain-Barré syndrome worldwide. The current study was based on the first 1000 inclusions with a follow-up of at least 1 year and confirmed the variation in clinical presentation, course and outcome between patients. The full clinical spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome was observed in patients from all countries participating in the International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study, but the frequency of variants differed between regions. We compared three regions based on geography, income and previous reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: Europe/Americas', Asia' (without Bangladesh), and Bangladesh'. We excluded 75 (8%) patients because of alternative diagnoses, protocol violations, or missing data. The predominant clinical variant was sensorimotor in Europe/Americas (n = 387/562, 69%) and Asia (n = 27/63, 43%), and pure motor in Bangladesh (n = 74/107, 69%). Miller Fisher syndrome and Miller Fisher-Guillain-Barré overlap syndrome were more common in Asia (n = 14/63, 22%) than in the other two regions (Europe/Americas: n = 64/562, 11%; Bangladesh: n = 1/107, 1%) (P < 0.001). The predominant electrophysiological subtype was demyelinating in all regions (Europe/Americas: n = 312/573, 55%; Asia: n = 29/65, 45%; Bangladesh: n = 38/94, 40%). The axonal subtype occurred more often in Bangladesh (n = 34/94, 36%) than in Europe/Americas (n = 33/573, 6%) and other Asian countries (n = 4/65, 6%) (P < 0.001). In all regions, patients with the axonal subtype were younger, had fewer sensory deficits, and showed a trend towards poorer recovery compared to patients with the demyelinating subtype. The proportion of patients able to walk unaided after 1 year varied between Asia (n = 31/34, 91%), Europe/Americas (n = 334/404, 83%) and Bangladesh (n = 67/97, 69%) (P = 0.003). A similar variation was seen for mortality, being higher in Bangladesh (n = 19/114, 17%) than in Europe/Americas (n = 23/486, 5%) and Asia (n = 1/45, 2%) (P < 0.001). This study showed that factors related to geography have a major influence on clinical phenotype, disease severity, electrophysiological subtype, and outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome