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.