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.
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.
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.
METHODS: Albuminocytologic 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%).
RESULTS: In 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%).
DISCUSSION: ACD 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.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that CSF ACD (defined by the Brighton Collaboration) is common in patients with GBS.
METHODS: We used prospective data from the first 1,500 patients included in IGOS, aged ≥6 years and unable to walk independently. We evaluated whether the mEGOS at entry and week 1 could predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in the full cohort and in regional subgroups, using 2 measures for model performance: (1) discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and (2) calibration: observed vs predicted probability of being unable to walk independently. To improve the model predictions, we recalibrated the model containing the overall mEGOS score, without changing the individual predictive factors. Finally, we assessed the predictive ability of the individual factors.
RESULTS: For validation of mEGOS at entry, 809 patients were eligible (Europe/North America [n = 677], Asia [n = 76], other [n = 56]), and 671 for validation of mEGOS at week 1 (Europe/North America [n = 563], Asia [n = 65], other [n = 43]). AUC values were >0.7 in all regional subgroups. In the Europe/North America subgroup, observed outcomes were worse than predicted; in Asia, observed outcomes were better than predicted. Recalibration improved model accuracy and enabled the development of a region-specific version for Europe/North America (mEGOS-Eu/NA). Similar to the original mEGOS, severe limb weakness and higher age were the predominant predictors of poor outcome in the IGOS cohort.
DISCUSSION: mEGOS is a validated tool to predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS, also in countries outside the Netherlands. We developed a region-specific version of mEGOS for patients from Europe/North America.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that the mEGOS accurately predicts the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: NCT01582763.