METHODS: Patients fulfilling the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for TN were prospectively interviewed for their demographic and clinical data. Pain intensity was rated with a visual analog scale (VAS), anxiety and depression were determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and QoL was assessed by the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman correlation tests were used to test for differences considering a significance level of P < .05.
RESULTS: Of the 75 included patients, 52 (69.3%) were women with a mean ± standard deviation (SD) onset age of 52.0 ± 12.7 years, and 57.3% were Chinese, 24.0% Malay, and 18.7% Indian. Pain was more common on the right side (69.3%) and in the maxillary and mandibular divisions. VAS scores for pain at its worst were higher in anxious/borderline anxious patients compared to non-anxious patients (89.5 ± 15.9 vs 80.9 ± 17.2, respectively; P < .05), and VAS scores for pain at its least were higher in depressed/borderline depressed subjects compared to non-depressed subjects (38.4 ± 25.8 vs 23.0 ± 19.2, respectively; P < .05). Chinese patients had lower VAS scores for pain at its least compared to Indian patients (19.7 ± 16.1 vs 39.9 ± 24.7; P < .01). TN patients scored lower in all eight domains of the SF-36 compared to the general population. Indian patients had lower scores in role limitations due to physical health (8.9 ± 23.2 vs 49.4 ± 43.8; P < .01) and social function (56.3 ± 13.6 vs 76.5 ± 23.6; P < .01) than Chinese patients, and Malay patients had lower mental health scores compared to Chinese patients (59.1 ± 19.5 vs 73.0 ± 21.0; P < .01).
CONCLUSION: Clinical characteristics of TN patients were similar to those of other populations. There were differences in pain ratings and QoL between TN patients of different ethnicities, as well as between those with anxiety and depression.
METHODS: Consecutive GBS and MFS patients presenting to our center between 2010 and 2020 were analyzed. The clinical characteristics, electrophysiological data, and antiganglioside antibody profiles of the patients were utilized in determining the clinical classification.
RESULTS: This study classified 132 patients with GBS and its related disorders according to the new classification criteria as follows: 64 (48.5%) as classic GBS, 2 (1.5%) as pharyngeal-cervical-brachial (PCB) variant, 7 (5.3%) as paraparetic GBS, 29 (22%) as classic MFS, 3 (2.3%) as acute ophthalmoparesis, 2 (1.5%) as acute ataxic neuropathy, 2 (1.5%) as Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis (BBE), 17 (12.9%) as GBS/MFS overlap, 4 (3%) as GBS/BBE overlap, 1 (0.8%) as MFS/PCB overlap, and 1 (0.8%) as polyneuritis cranialis. The electrodiagnosis was demyelinating in 55% of classic GBS patients but unclassified in 79% of classic MFS patients. Anti-GM1, anti-GD1a, anti-GalNAc-GD1a, and anti-GD1b IgG ganglioside antibodies were more commonly detected in the axonal GBS subtype, whereas the anti-GQ1b and anti-GT1a IgG ganglioside antibodies were more common in classic MFS and its subtypes.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients in the present cohort met the criteria of either classic GBS or MFS, but variants were seen in one-third of patients. These findings support the need to recognize variants of both syndromes in order to achieve a more-complete case ascertainment in GBS.