Search

To describe the heterogeneity of electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) patients collected as part of the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS). 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. 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. Our study showed extensive variation in the clinical practice of EDx in GBS patients among IGOS centers across the regions. 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.

Electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies are helpful in diagnosing and subtyping of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS). Published criteria for differentiation into GBS subtypes focus on cutoff values, but other items receive less attention, although they may influence EDx subtyping: (a) extensiveness of EDx testing, (b) nerve-specific considerations, (c) distal compound muscle action potential (CMAP)-amplitude requirements, (d) criteria for conduction block and temporal dispersion. The aims of this study were to investigate how these aspects were approached by neuromuscular EDx experts in practice and how this was done in previously published EDx criteria for GBS. A completed questionnaire was returned by 24 (of 49) members of the electrophysiology expertise group from the International GBS Outcome Study. Six published EDx criteria for GBS subtyping were compared regarding these aspects. The indicated minimal number of motor nerves to study varied among respondents and tended to be more extensive in equivocal than normal studies. Respondents varied considerably regarding usage of compression sites for subtyping (median/wrist, ulnar/elbow, peroneal/fibular head): 29% used all variables from all sites, 13% excluded all sites, and 58% used only some sites and/or variables. Thirty-eight percent of respondents required a minimal distal CMAP amplitude to classify distal motor latency as demyelinating, and 58% did for motor conduction velocity. For proximal/distal CMAP-amplitude ratio and F-wave latency, a requisite minimal CMAP amplitude was more often required (79%). Also, the various published criteria sets showed differences on all items. Practical use of EDx criteria for subtyping GBS vary extensively across respondents, potentially lowering the reproducibility of GBS subtyping.

Objective: To describe the heterogeneity of electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies in Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) patients collected as part of the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS).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.(c) 2022 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies are helpful in diagnosing and subtyping of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Published criteria for differentiation into GBS subtypes focus on cutoff values, but other items receive less attention, although they may influence EDx subtyping: (a) extensiveness of EDx testing, (b) nerve-specific considerations, (c) distal compound muscle action potential (CMAP)-amplitude requirements, (d) criteria for conduction block and temporal dispersion. The aims of this study were to investigate how these aspects were approached by neuromuscular EDx experts in practice and how this was done in previously published EDx criteria for GBS. A completed questionnaire was returned by 24 (of 49) members of the electrophysiology expertise group from the International GBS Outcome Study. Six published EDx criteria for GBS subtyping were compared regarding these aspects. The indicated minimal number of motor nerves to study varied among respondents and tended to be more extensive in equivocal than normal studies. Respondents varied considerably regarding usage of compression sites for subtyping (median/wrist, ulnar/elbow, peroneal/fibular head): 29% used all variables from all sites, 13% excluded all sites, and 58% used only some sites and/or variables. Thirty-eight percent of respondents required a minimal distal CMAP amplitude to classify distal motor latency as demyelinating, and 58% did for motor conduction velocity. For proximal/distal CMAP-amplitude ratio and F-wave latency, a requisite minimal CMAP amplitude was more often required (79%). Also, the various published criteria sets showed differences on all items. Practical use of EDx criteria for subtyping GBS vary extensively across respondents, potentially lowering the reproducibility of GBS subtyping.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the heterogeneity of electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) patients collected as part of the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS).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.

Objective To compare the disease course in patients with mild Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) who were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or supportive care only. Methods We selected patients from the prospective observational International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) who were able to walk independently at study entry (mild GBS), treated with one IVIg course or supportive care. The primary endpoint was the GBS disability score four weeks after study entry, assessed by multivariable ordinal regression analysis. Results Of 188 eligible patients, 148 (79%) were treated with IVIg and 40 (21%) with supportive care. The IVIg group was more disabled at baseline. IVIg treatment was not associated with lower GBS disability scores at 4 weeks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.13). Nearly all secondary endpoints showed no benefit from IVIg, although the time to regain full muscle strength was shorter (28 vs 56 days, p=0.03) and reported pain at 26 weeks was lower (n=26/121, 22% vs n=12/30, 40%, p=0.04) in the IVIg treated patients. In the subanalysis with persistent mild GBS in the first 2 weeks, the aOR for a lower GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 2.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 7.13). At 1 year, 40% of all patients had residual symptoms. Conclusion In patients with mild GBS, one course of IVIg did not improve the overall disease course. The certainty of this conclusion is limited by confounding factors, selection bias and wide confidence limits. Residual symptoms were often present after one year, indicating the need for better treatments in mild GBS.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the disease course in patients with mild Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) who were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or supportive care only.METHODS: We selected patients from the prospective observational International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) who were able to walk independently at study entry (mild GBS), treated with one IVIg course or supportive care. The primary endpoint was the GBS disability score four weeks after study entry, assessed by multivariable ordinal regression analysis.RESULTS: Of 188 eligible patients, 148 (79%) were treated with IVIg and 40 (21%) with supportive care. The IVIg group was more disabled at baseline. IVIg treatment was not associated with lower GBS disability scores at 4 weeks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.13). Nearly all secondary endpoints showed no benefit from IVIg, although the time to regain full muscle strength was shorter (28 vs 56 days, p=0.03) and reported pain at 26 weeks was lower (n=26/121, 22% vs n=12/30, 40%, p=0.04) in the IVIg treated patients. In the subanalysis with persistent mild GBS in the first 2 weeks, the aOR for a lower GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 2.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 7.13). At 1 year, 40% of all patients had residual symptoms.CONCLUSION: In patients with mild GBS, one course of IVIg did not improve the overall disease course. The certainty of this conclusion is limited by confounding factors, selection bias and wide confidence limits. Residual symptoms were often present after one year, indicating the need for better treatments in mild 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 (