Prediction of Outcome in Patients with Guillain Barre Syndrome—An Egyptian Study
- 1 Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
- 2 Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
- 3 Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
- 4 Kobri Elkoba Military Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
- 5 Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
- 6 Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Abstract
Study Objectives: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is an acute-onset, monophasic immune-mediated disorder of the peripheral nervous system that often follows an infection. The outcome and prognosis of GBS depend on many factors such as the etiology, clinical features, neurophysiology and immunological parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the factors (clinical, investigatory tools, and therapies) that may affect the outcome of patients with GBS. Patients and methods: this was an analytical observational study that was conducted at Ain Shams university hospitals and Kobri Elkoba Military Hospital including twenty patients with the diagnosis of Guillain Barre Syndrome in the duration from 2016 to 2018. This study included twenty patients with the diagnosis of GBS within two weeks from onset of neurologic symptoms, whom their diagnosis based on the established clinical criteria and verified by investigations. Patients were selected from both genders and aged from 18 to 65 years old. Nerve conduction studies and electromyography were performed within two weeks from admission. Various lines of treatment such as plasma exchange (PE), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) or both were used during the period of admission in hospital. Outcome was assessed by the Hughes functional score (F-score), that was applied to the patients on admission, at end of 4 weeks from onset of neuropathy and at the end of 8 weeks. The final outcome at the end of 8 weeks was classified as follow: Group I: good prognosis (0 - 2) on the Hughes functional score (15 patients) and Group II: poor prognosis (3 - 6) on the Hughes functional score (5 patients). Results: the age of the study population ranged from 18 to 65 years with mean of 36.10 ± 16.08 years. Fifteen (75%) patients were males and 5 (25%) patients were females. There was no statistically significant difference found between poor and good prognosis regarding gender. The most common electrophysiological subtype was demyelinating followed by axonal neuropathy. Most patients (75%) had a good outcome at end of study period. It was found that the different line of treatment administered (plasma exchange or IVIG or both) was not associated with poor or good outcome. The patients who needed mechanical ventilation had significantly poor prognosis. Conclusion: the most common electrophysiological subtype was demyelinating followed by axonal neuropathy. Ascending pattern of weakness was more common than descending pattern in this study population and was not related to prognosis. High Hughes score at admission was associated with poor outcome at 8 weeks.
- Jacobs, B.C., van den Berg, L., Christine, V., et al. (2017) International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study (IGOS): Protocol of a Prospective Observational Cohort Study on Clinical and Biological Predictors of Disease Course and Outcome in Guillain-Barrésyndrome. Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System, 22, 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jns.12209
- Rady, H.I. and Attala, H. (2014) Assessment of New Strategies in the Management of Guillain Barre Syndrome: Cairo University. Journal of Pediatrics & Neonatal Care, 1, Article ID: 00027. https://doi.org/10.15406/jpnc.2014.01.00027
- Rosen, B.A. (2012) Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Pediatrics in Review, 33, 164-170. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.33-4-164
- Sharma, M.B., Chaudhry, R., Tabassum, I., Ahmed, N.H., Sahu, J.K., et al. (2011) The Presence of Mycoplasma Pneumonia Infection and GM1 Ganglioside Antibodies in Guillain-Barre Syndrome. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 5, 459-464. https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.1508
- Chiò, A., Cocito, D., Leone, M., Giordana, M.T., Mora, G., Mutani, R. and d’Aosta, V. (2003) Guillain-Barre Syndrome: A Prospective, Population-Based Incidence and Outcome Survey. Neurology, 60, 1146-1150. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000055091.96905.D0
- Kuitwaard, K., de Gelder, J., Tio-Gillen, A.P., Hop, W.C., van Gelder, T., van Toorenenbergen, A.W., van Doorn, P.A. and Jacobs, B.C. (2009) Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Immunoglobulin and Outcome in Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Annals of Neurology, 66, 597-603. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21737
- Hughes, R.A., Newsom-Davis, J.M., Perkin, G.D. and Pierce, J.M. (1978) Controlled Trial Prednisolone in Acute Polyneuropathy. The Lancet, 2, 750-753. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92644-2
- Van den Berg, B., Walgaard, C., Drenthen, J., Fokke, C., Jacobs, B.C. and van Doorn, P.A. (2014) Guillain-Barre Syndrome: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prognosis. Nature Reviews Neurology, 10, 469-482. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.121
- Esmail, S. (2019) An Overview of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Neurophysiology and Rehabilitation, 1, 42-46. https://doi.org/10.33805/2641-8991.113
- Van Koningsveld, R., Steyerberg, E.W., Hughes, R.A., Swan, A.V., van Doorn, P.A. and Jacobs, B.C. (2007) A Clinical Prognostic Scoring System for Guillain-Barre Syndrome. The Lancet Neurology, 6, 589-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70130-8
- Munayco, C.V., Soto, M.G., Reyes, M.F., et al. (2019) Epidemiology of Guillain Barre Syndrome in Peru. Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública, 36, 10-16. https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2019.361.3729