Serial electrophysiology in Guillain-Barré syndrome: A retrospective cohort and case-by-case multicentre analysis

Serial Nerve Conduction Studies in Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Its Usefulness and Precise Timing

PURPOSE

Nerve conduction study (NCS) is essential for subclassifying Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). It is well known that the GBS subclassification can change through serial NCSs. However, the usefulness of serial NCSs is debatable, especially in patients with early stage GBS.

METHODS

Follow-up NCS data within 3 weeks (early followed NCS, EFN) and within 3 to 10 weeks (late-followed NCS, LFN) were collected from 60 patients with GBS who underwent their first NCS (FN) within 10 days after symptom onset. Each NCS was classified into five subtypes (normal, demyelinating, axonal, inexcitable, and equivocal), according to Hadden's and Rajabally's criteria. We analyzed the frequency of significant changes in classification (SCCs) comprising electrodiagnostic aggravation and subtype shifts between demyelinating and axonal types according to follow-up timing.

RESULTS

Between FN and EFN, 33.3% of patients with Hadden's criteria and 18.3% with Rajabally's criteria showed SCCs. Between FN and LFN, 23.3% of patients with Hadden's criteria and 21.7% with Rajabally's criteria showed SCCs, of which 71.4% (Hadden's criteria) and 46.2% (Rajabally's criteria) already showed SCCs from the EFN. The conditions of delayed SCCs between EFN and LFN were very early FN, mild symptoms at the FN, or persistent electrophysiological deterioration 3 weeks after symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of patients with GBS showed significant changes in neurophysiological classification at the early stage. Serial NCS may be helpful for precise neurophysiological classification. This study suggests that follow-up NCSs should be performed within 3 weeks of symptom onset in patients with GBS in whom FN was performed within 10 days of symptom onset.

European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on diagnosis and treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy. Symptoms may vary greatly in presentation and severity. Besides weakness and sensory disturbances, patients may have cranial nerve involvement, respiratory insufficiency, autonomic dysfunction and pain. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of GBS, using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) constructed 14 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome questions (PICOs) covering diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of GBS, which guided the literature search. Data were extracted and summarised in GRADE Summaries of Findings (for treatment PICOs) or Evidence Tables (for diagnostic and prognostic PICOs). Statements were prepared according to GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. For the six intervention PICOs, evidence-based recommendations are made. For other PICOs, good practice points (GPPs) are formulated. For diagnosis, the principal GPPs are: GBS is more likely if there is a history of recent diarrhoea or respiratory infection; CSF examination is valuable, particularly when the diagnosis is less certain; electrodiagnostic testing is advised to support the diagnosis; testing for anti-ganglioside antibodies is of limited clinical value in most patients with typical motor-sensory GBS, but anti-GQ1b antibody testing should be considered when Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) is suspected; nodal-paranodal antibodies should be tested when autoimmune nodopathy is suspected; MRI or ultrasound imaging should be considered in atypical cases; and changing the diagnosis to acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (A-CIDP) should be considered if progression continues after 8 weeks from onset, which occurs in around 5% of patients initially diagnosed with GBS. For treatment, the TF recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) 0.4 g/kg for 5 days, in patients within 2 weeks (GPP also within 2-4 weeks) after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided, or a course of plasma exchange (PE) 12-15 L in four to five exchanges over 1-2 weeks, in patients within 4 weeks after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided. The TF recommends against a second IVIg course in GBS patients with a poor prognosis; recommends against using oral corticosteroids, and weakly recommends against using IV corticosteroids; does not recommend PE followed immediately by IVIg; weakly recommends gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants or carbamazepine for treatment of pain; does not recommend a specific treatment for fatigue. To estimate the prognosis of individual patients, the TF advises using the modified Erasmus GBS outcome score (mEGOS) to assess outcome, and the modified Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score (mEGRIS) to assess the risk of requiring artificial ventilation. Based on the PICOs, available literature and additional discussions, we provide flow charts to assist making clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and the need for intensive care unit admission.

European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on diagnosis and treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy. Symptoms may vary greatly in presentation and severity. Besides weakness and sensory disturbances, patients may have cranial nerve involvement, respiratory insufficiency, autonomic dysfunction and pain. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of GBS, using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) constructed 14 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome questions (PICOs) covering diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of GBS, which guided the literature search. Data were extracted and summarised in GRADE Summaries of Findings (for treatment PICOs) or Evidence Tables (for diagnostic and prognostic PICOs). Statements were prepared according to GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. For the six intervention PICOs, evidence-based recommendations are made. For other PICOs, good practice points (GPPs) are formulated. For diagnosis, the principal GPPs are: GBS is more likely if there is a history of recent diarrhoea or respiratory infection; CSF examination is valuable, particularly when the diagnosis is less certain; electrodiagnostic testing is advised to support the diagnosis; testing for anti-ganglioside antibodies is of limited clinical value in most patients with typical motor-sensory GBS, but anti-GQ1b antibody testing should be considered when Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) is suspected; nodal-paranodal antibodies should be tested when autoimmune nodopathy is suspected; MRI or ultrasound imaging should be considered in atypical cases; and changing the diagnosis to acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (A-CIDP) should be considered if progression continues after 8 weeks from onset, which occurs in around 5% of patients initially diagnosed with GBS. For treatment, the TF recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) 0.4 g/kg for 5 days, in patients within 2 weeks (GPP also within 2-4 weeks) after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided, or a course of plasma exchange (PE) 12-15 L in four to five exchanges over 1-2 weeks, in patients within 4 weeks after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided. The TF recommends against a second IVIg course in GBS patients with a poor prognosis; recommends against using oral corticosteroids, and weakly recommends against using IV corticosteroids; does not recommend PE followed immediately by IVIg; weakly recommends gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants or carbamazepine for treatment of pain; does not recommend a specific treatment for fatigue. To estimate the prognosis of individual patients, the TF advises using the modified Erasmus GBS outcome score (mEGOS) to assess outcome, and the modified Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score (mEGRIS) to assess the risk of requiring artificial ventilation. Based on the PICOs, available literature and additional discussions, we provide flow charts to assist making clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and the need for intensive care unit admission.

Dose-Effect Relationship of Motor Nerve Inexcitability on Outcome in Guillain-Barré Syndrome: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective

One or more inexcitable motor (IM) nerves are common during electrodiagnostic (EDx) study in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). This study assessed the dose-effect relationship of IM nerves on outcome in patients with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) and acute motor and/or sensory axonal neuropathy (AMAN and AMSAN).

Materials and Methods

Eighty-eight GBS patients admitted during May 2018-June 2023 underwent detailed clinical evaluation and EDx study. Admission and follow-up disability were assessed on a 0-10 Clinical Grading Scale (CGS). Outcome was recovery at 6 months, defined as good (CGS <3) and poor (CGS ≥3). Binary multivariate logistic regression with backward elimination was used to calculate independent predictors of outcome.

Results

Proportion of patients with complete recovery decreased significantly with increasing numbers of IM nerves (P < 0.01). Seventy-six patients were followed for 6 months. Among patients with IM nerves (n = 28), complete recovery was similar between AIDP and axonal GBS (70% vs. 50%, respectively; P = 0.40). However, in patients with recordable compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) in all the motor nerves (n = 26), axonal GBS had significantly poor recovery compared to AIDP (75% vs. 9.1%; P = 0.01). Among patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg; n = 42), poor recovery was seen in 53.6% with IM nerves compared to 35.7% without (P = 0.28), while it was 37.5% versus 5.6% (P = 0.04), respectively, in those who did not receive IVIg (n = 34). However, only admission disability (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.97; P = 0.007) was found to be an independent predictor of outcome.

Conclusion

Although increasing numbers of IM nerves were associated with poor outcome on univariate analysis, they did not predict 6 months' outcome independently. Outcome did not differ between axonal GBS and AIDP among those with IM nerves. IVIg improved outcome in patients with IM nerves.

Emerging biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes in Guillain-Barré syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an immune-mediated poly(radiculo)neuropathy with a variable clinical outcome. Identifying patients who are at risk of suffering from long-term disabilities is a great challenge. Biomarkers are useful to confirm diagnosis, monitor disease progression, and predict outcome.

AREAS COVERED

The authors provide an overview of the diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for GBS, which are useful for establishing early treatment strategies and follow-up care plans.

EXPERT OPINION

Detecting patients at risk of developing a severe outcome may improve management of disease progression and limit potential complications. Several clinical factors are associated with poor prognosis: higher age, presence of diarrhea within 4 weeks of symptom onset, rapid and severe weakness progression, dysautonomia, decreased vital capacity and facial, bulbar, and neck weakness. Biological, neurophysiological and imaging measures of unfavorable outcome include multiple anti-ganglioside antibodies elevation, increased serum and CSF neurofilaments light (NfL) and heavy chain, decreased NfL CSF/serum ratio, hypoalbuminemia, nerve conduction study with early signs of demyelination or axonal loss and enlargement of nerve cross-sectional area on ultrasound. Depicting prognostic biomarkers aims at predicting short-term mortality and need for cardio-pulmonary support, long-term patient functional outcome, guiding treatment decisions and monitoring therapeutic responses in future clinical trials.

Nerve conduction studies in Guillain-Barré syndrome: Influence of timing and value of repeated measurements

OBJECTIVE

Nerve conduction studies (NCS) are essential to differentiate between demyelinating and axonal subtypes in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). However, it is debated to which extent the delay of NCS after symptom onset and repeated measurements during the disease course influence the diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We evaluated NCS in 93 patients with a classical GBS applying two widely used criteria (Hadden's and Rajabally's). The initial measurements after symptom onset were compared to follow-up studies where available (n = 43). We analyzed the influence of NCS timing after symptom onset and clinical severity on fulfilling the electrophysiological criteria for axonal or demyelinating subtypes and evaluated the impact of repeated measurements. We further evaluated the presence of reversible conduction failure.

RESULTS

A higher GBS disability scale at nadir correlated with a successful subclassification whereas the delay of the first NCS after symptom onset did not influence the diagnostic yield (75% for Hadden's and 68% for Rajabally's criteria for the first assessment). A second measurement allowed the additional successful classification in 19% and 14% of patients, respectively. On the other hand, a repeated measurement in patients with an initial successful classification resulted in a different subtype in 5% and 7%, respectively. Reversible conduction failure was found in 7% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Clinical severity but not timing of NCS influenced the fulfilment of electrophysiological criteria for either the axonal or demyelinating subtype. Repeated electrophysiological measurements led to a further specification or a change in subtype classification in a relevant proportion of patients.

The prognostic value of demyelinating electrophysiologic findings and cerebrospinal fluid protein levels in acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barre syndrome is an acute immune-mediated polyneuropathy characterized by rapidly evolving symptoms and disability. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis and electrophysiological studies are crucial in the diagnosis of this syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic value of the type and number of demyelinating findings and cerebrospinal fluid protein levels in patients with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed electrophysiological data and cerebrospinal fluid of 67 consecutive patients with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy from Istanbul, Turkey (2011-2019) studied ≤ 24 hours post-onset.

RESULTS

The patients who met a higher number of demyelinating criteria had increased disability scores in the first day and first month, and higher cerebrospinal fluid protein levels were correlated with worse prognosis both on the first day and the first month. However, the disability scores did not correlate with any single specific criterion, and no significant correlation was found between the number of satisfied criteria and cerebrospinal fluid protein levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of demyelinating criteria that are met and high cerebrospinal fluid protein levels at the disease onset may be valuable prognostic markers. More systematic studies conducted with serial nerve conduction studies are required to highlight the roles of the suggested criteria in clinical practice.

The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: Where do we stand?

It is controversial as to whether the electrophysiological Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) subtypes can be diagnosed on the basis of a single study and which criteria sets and cut-offs should be used. Serial electrophysiologic studies have shown that a significant number of patients changed electrodiagnostic subtype largely because of the recognition of reversible conduction failure as a possible evidence of axonal pathology. However, other reports concluded that electrodiagnosis can be made by a single study, the subtypes depending on the characteristic of the criteria set applied. Such divergent views, although explicable by the different methodology employed, can be confusing in the everyday practice. We argue that the pathophysiology of GBS is dynamic and that serial studies allow a more accurate diagnosis of subtypes. A second study, although not always practicable, is recommended in patients showing no clear demyelinating features, low amplitude distal compound muscle action potentials or conduction block without temporal dispersion. For practical purposes, we propose that at a first study Uncini's or Rajabally's criteria sets can be employed for an indicative subtype diagnosis. Finally, although the GBS subtype diagnosis has currently no impact on treatment, we believe that is important for understanding the underlying pathophysiology and prognostication.