Search

Objective:This study aimed to validate the Erasmus Guillain–Barré Syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score in the International Guillain–Barré Syndrome Outcome Study cohort, and to improve its performance and region-specificity. Methods:We examined data from the first 1,500 included patients, aged ≥6 years and not ventilated prior to study entry. Patients with a clinical variant or mild symptoms were also included. Outcome was mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Model performance was assessed regarding the discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and the calibration (observed vs predicted probability of mechanical ventilation), in the full cohort and in Europe/North America and Asia separately. We recalibrated the model to improve its performance and region-specificity. Results:In the group of 1,023 eligible patients (Europe/North America n=842, Asia n=104, other n=77), 104 (10%) required mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Area under the curve values were ≥0.80 for all validation subgroups. Mean observed proportions of mechanical ventilation were lower than predicted risks: full cohort 10% versus 21%, Europe/North America 9% versus 21%, and Asia 17% versus 23%. After recalibration, predicted risks for the full cohort and Europe/North America corresponded to observed proportions. Interpretation:This prospective, international cohort study validated the Erasmus Guillain–Barré Syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score, and showed that the model can be used in the full spectrum of Guillain–Barré syndrome patients. In addition, a more accurate, region-specific version of the model was developed for patients from Europe/North America.

ObjectiveTo compare disease course in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) with a poor prognosis who were treated with one or with two intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) courses.MethodsFrom 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.ResultsOf 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 week, 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

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.

Guillain-Barre 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.

Background and purposeThere is increasing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical studies to capture individual changes over time. However, PROMs have also been criticized because they are entirely subjective. Our objective was to examine the relationship between a subjective PROM and an objective outcome tool in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and gammopathy-related polyneuropathy (MGUSP). MethodsThe Inflammatory Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (I-RODS (c), a multi-item scale that examines functionality) was completed by 137 patients with newly diagnosed (or relapsing) GBS (55), CIDP (59) and MGUSP (23) who were serially examined (GBS/CIDP, T0/T1/T3/T6/T12 months; MGUSP, T0/T3/T12). Possible association between the I-RODS findings and the vigorimeter scores, an objective linear instrument to assess grip strength, was examined. ResultsA significant correlating trend was found between the I-RODS and grip strength scores for the overall group and in each illness, independently. ConclusionThe objectivity of patients' subjective report on their functional state based on a strong correlation between the I-RODS and grip strength in patients with GBS, CIDP and MGUSP has been demonstrated. These findings provide further support to use the I-RODS and grip strength in future clinical studies in these conditions.

The ability to walk is considered a benchmark for good clinical recovery and prognosis, particularly in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). However, it has never been determined whether being able to walk represents general functionality. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the ability to walk outside independently reflects general functional improvement in patients with GBS, CIDP, and gammopathy-related neuropathy (MGUSP). A total of 137 patients with newly diagnosed (or relapsing) GBS (55), CIDP (59), and MGUSP (23) were serially examined (1-year). Predefined arbitrary cut-offs (so-called patients' Functional-Acceptable-Clinical-Thresholds [FACTs]) were taken at the 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile of the Inflammatory-Rasch-built-Overall-Disability-Scale (I-RODS (c)). We determined the proportion of patients able to walk outside independently that reached the postulated cut-offs. A mean total of 85%, 39%, and 12% of all patients able to walk reached 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile thresholds, respectively. These findings were not neuropathy type related. Our findings show that assessing only one construct of functionality (e.g., walking ability) does not reflect the full scope of daily/social functional deficits perceived by patients. The ability to walk shows a patient is doing better, but not necessarily doing well. The I-RODS (c) bypasses these limitations.

Clinical trials in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) have often used ordinal-based measures that may not accurately capture changes. We aimed to construct a disability interval outcome measure specifically for MMN using the Rasch model and to examine its clinimetric properties. A total of 146 preliminary activity and participation items were assessed twice (reliability studies) in 96 clinically stable MMN patients. These patients also assessed the ordinal-based overall disability sum score (construct, sample-dependent validity). The final Rasch-built overall disability scale for MMN (MMN-RODS(C)) was serially applied in 26 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing MMN, treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (1-year follow-up; responsiveness study). The magnitude of change for each patient was calculated using the minimum clinically important difference technique related to the individually obtained standard errors. A total of 121 items not fulfilling Rasch requirements were removed. The final 25-item MMN-RODS(C) fulfilled all Rasch model's expectations and showed acceptable reliability and validity including good discriminatory capacity. Most serially examined patients improved, but its magnitude was low, reflecting poor responsiveness. The constructed MMN-RODS(C) is a disease-specific, interval measure to detect activity limitations in patients with MMN and overcomes the shortcomings of ordinal scales. However, future clinimetric studies are needed to improve the MMN-RODS(C)'s responsiveness by longer observations and/or more rigorous treatment regimens.

Outcome measures are considered the most important tools to monitor patients' outcome in both clinical and research settings. Measuring the clinical state of patients is a fundamental part of our daily clinical practice and research that sometimes is taken for granted. In peripheral neuropathies, there are many scales available, but most of these are at the ordinal level. This paper will systematically address the types of scales available (being nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio data-based) in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. The differences between classical test theory-based and modern test method-based outcome measures will be addressed with emphasis on Rasch methodology. Various steps will be highlighted as part of the evaluation and construction of outcome measures using the Rasch method, with the aim to increase the knowledge and utility of this technique. We argue that Rasch-built outcome measures should be used for future studies in neuromuscular disorders and their method of construction could be easily extrapolated to other neurological illnesses.

This study aimed to define responder' through the concept of minimum clinically important differences using the individually obtained standard errors (MCID-SE) and a heuristic external criterion' responsiveness method in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). One hundred and fourteen newly diagnosed or relapsing patients (GBS: 55, CIDP: 59) were serially examined (1-year follow-up). The inflammatory Rasch-built overall disability scale (I-RODS), Rasch-transformed MRC sum score (RT-MRC), and Rasch-transformed modified-INCAT-sensory scale (RT-mISS) were assessed. Being-a-responder was defined as having a MCID-SE cut-off 1.96. Also, the correlations between patients' scores on each scale and the EuroQoL health-status thermometer' (external criterion) were determined (higher correlation indicated better responsiveness). In both diseases, the SEs showed a characteristic U'-shaped dynamic pattern across each scales' continuum. The number of patients showing a meaningful change were higher for the I-RODS>RT-MRC>RT-mISS and were in GBS higher than CIDP patients. The MCID-SE concept using Rasch-transformed data demonstrated an individual pattern of being-a-responder' in patients with immune-mediated neuropathies, and the findings were validated by the external criterion responsiveness method. The I-RODS showed greater responsiveness compared with the MRC and INCAT-sensory scales, and its use is therefore recommended in future trials in GBS and CIDP.

The Jamar dynamometer and Vigorimeter have been used to assess grip strength in immune-mediated neuropathies, but have never been compared to each other. Therefore, we performed a comparison study between these two devices in patients with immune-mediated neuropathies. Grip strength data were collected in 102 cross-sectional stable and 163 longitudinal (new diagnoses or changing condition) patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), gammopathy-related polyneuropathy (MGUSP), and multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). Stable patients were assessed twice (validity/reliability studies). Longitudinal patients were assessed 3-5times during 1year. Responsiveness comparison between the two tools was examined using combined anchor-/distribution-based minimum clinically important difference (MCID) techniques. Patients were asked to indicate their preference for the Jamar or Vigorimeter. Both tools correlated highly with each other (=0.86, p

The objectives of this study were to provide an overview of the outcome measures (OMs) applied in clinical trials in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) and to determine the responsiveness of a core set of selected OMs as part of the peripheral neuropathy outcome measures standardization (PeriNomS) study. The following OMs were serially applied in 26 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing MMN, receiving intravenous immunoglobulin (assessments: T0/T3/T12months): 14 muscle pairs MRC (Medical Research Council) scale, the Neuropathy Impairment Scale motor-subset, a self-evaluation scale, grip strength, and MMN-RODS(C) (Rasch-built overall disability scale). All data, except the grip strength, were subjected to Rasch analyses before determining responsiveness. For grip strength, responsiveness was examined using a combined anchor- (SF-36 question-2) and distribution-based (1/2xSD) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) techniques, determining the proportion of patients exceeding both the identified cut-offs. For the remaining scales, the magnitude of change for each patient on each scale was determined using the MCID related to the individual SE (responder definition: MCID-SE1.96). Overall, a great assortment of measures has been used in MMN trials with different responsiveness definitions. For the selected OMs, responsiveness was poor and only seen in one fourth to one third of the patients, the grip strength being more responsive. Despite the efforts taken to standardize outcome assessment, further clinimetric responsiveness studies are needed in MMN.

We performed a comparison between Neuropathy Impairment Scale-sensory (NISs) vs. the modified Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment sensory scale (mISS), and NIS-motor vs. the Medical Research Council sum score in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), and IgM monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance-related polyneuropathy (MGUSP). The ordinal data were subjected to Rasch analyses, creating Rasch-transformed (RT)-intervals for all measures. Comparison between measures was based on validity/reliability with an emphasis on responsiveness (using the patient's level of change related to the individually obtained varying SE for minimum clinically important difference). Eighty stable patients (GBS: 30, CIDP: 30, and MGUSP: 20) were assessed twice (entry: two observers; 2-4weeks later: one observer), and 137 newly diagnosed or relapsing patients (GBS: 55, CIDP: 59, and IgM-MGUSP: 23) were serially examined with 12months follow-up. Data modifications were needed to improve model fit for all measures. The sensory and motor scales demonstrated approximately equal and acceptable validity and reliability scores. Responsiveness scores were poor but slightly higher in RT-mISS compared to RT-NISs. Responsiveness was equal for the RT-motor scales, but higher in GBS compared to CIDP; responsiveness was poor in patients with MGUSP, suggesting a longer duration of follow-up in the latter group of patients.

The Medical Research Council grading system has served through decades for the evaluation of muscle strength and has been recognized as a cardinal feature of daily neurological, rehabilitation and general medicine examination of patients, despite being respectfully criticized due to the unequal width of its response options. No study has systematically examined, through modern psychometric approach, whether physicians are able to properly use the Medical Research Council grades. The objectives of this study were: (i) to investigate physicians' ability to discriminate among the Medical Research Council categories in patients with different neuromuscular disorders and with various degrees of weakness through thresholds examination using Rasch analysis as a modern psychometric method; (ii) to examine possible factors influencing physicians' ability to apply the Medical Research Council categories through differential item function analyses; and (iii) to examine whether the widely used Medical Research Council 12 muscles sum score in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy would meet Rasch model's expectations. A total of 1065 patients were included from nine cohorts with the following diseases: Guillain-Barre syndrome (n = 480); myotonic dystrophy type-1 (n = 169); chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (n = 139); limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (n = 105); multifocal motor neuropathy (n = 102); Pompe's disease (n = 62) and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined related polyneuropathy (n = 8). Medical Research Council data of 72 muscles were collected. Rasch analyses were performed on Medical Research Council data for each cohort separately and after pooling data at the muscle level to increase category frequencies, and on the Medical Research Council sum score in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Disordered thresholds were demonstrated in 74-79% of the muscles examined, indicating physicians' inability to discriminate between most Medical Research Council categories. Factors such as physicians' experience or illness type did not influence these findings. Thresholds were restored after rescoring the Medical Research Council grades from six to four options (0, paralysis; 1, severe weakness; 2, slight weakness; 3, normal strength). The Medical Research Council sum score acceptably fulfilled Rasch model expectations after rescoring the response options and creating subsets to resolve local dependency and item bias on diagnosis. In conclusion, a modified, Rasch-built four response category Medical Research Council grading system is proposed, resolving clinicians' inability to differentiate among its original response categories and improving clinical applicability. A modified Medical Research Council sum score at the interval level is presented and is recommended for future studies in Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.