-
The American Journal of Medicine Jan 2020Very little evidence is available on the prevalence of serious spinal pathologies and the diagnostic accuracy of red flags in patients presenting to the emergency...
BACKGROUND
Very little evidence is available on the prevalence of serious spinal pathologies and the diagnostic accuracy of red flags in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). This systematic review aims to investigate the prevalence of serious spinal pathologies and the diagnostic accuracy of red flags in patients presenting with low back pain to the ED.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS from inception to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed the references and evaluated methodological quality.
RESULTS
We analyzed 22 studies with a total of 41,320 patients. The prevalence of any requiring immediate/urgent treatment was 2.5%-5.1% in prospective and 0.7%-7.4% in retrospective studies (0.0%-7.2% for vertebral fractures, 0.0%-2.1% for spinal cancer, 0.0%-1.9% for infectious disorders, 0.1%-1.9% for pathologies with spinal cord/cauda equina compression, 0.0%-0.9% for vascular pathologies). Examples of red flags which increased the likelihood for a serious condition were suspicion or history of cancer (spinal cancer); intravenous drug use, indwelling vascular catheter, and other infection site (epidural abscess).
CONCLUSION
We found a higher prevalence of serious spinal pathologies in the ED compared to the reported prevalence in primary care settings. As the diagnostic accuracy of most red flags was reported only by a single study, further validation in high-quality prospective studies is needed.
Topics: Catheters, Indwelling; Cauda Equina Syndrome; Emergency Service, Hospital; Epidural Abscess; Humans; Low Back Pain; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Spinal Cord Compression; Spinal Fractures; Spinal Neoplasms; Substance Abuse, Intravenous; Vascular Access Devices
PubMed: 31278933
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.06.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Plasma Exchange; Polyneuropathies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35015296
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004429.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (CIAP) is an insidiously progressive sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy that affects elderly people. Although severe... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (CIAP) is an insidiously progressive sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy that affects elderly people. Although severe disability or handicap does not occur, CIAP reduces quality of life. CIAP is diagnosed in 10% to 25% of people referred for evaluation of polyneuropathy. There is a need to gather and review emerging evidence on treatments, as the number of people affected is likely to increase in ageing populations. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy for reducing disability and ameliorating neurological symptoms and associated impairments, and to assess any adverse effects of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
In July 2016, we searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We searched two trials registries for ongoing trials. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and textbooks identified electronically, and we would have contacted authors and other experts in the field to identify additional studies if this seemed useful.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised (alternate or other systematic treatment allocation) trials that examined the effects of any drug therapy in people with CIAP at least one year after the onset of treatment. People with CIAP had to fulfil the following criteria: age 40 years or older, distal sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy, absence of systemic or other neurological disease, chronic clinical course not reaching a nadir in less than two months, exclusion of any recognised cause of the polyneuropathy by medical history taking, clinical or laboratory investigations, and electrophysiological studies in agreement with axonal polyneuropathy, without evidence of demyelinating features. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a significant improvement in disability. Secondary outcomes were change in the mean disability score, change in the proportion of participants who make use of walking aids, change in the mean Medical Research Council sum score, degree of pain relief and/or reduction of other positive sensory symptoms, change in the proportion of participants with pain or other positive sensory symptoms, and frequency of adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed the results of the literature search and extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data of all potentially relevant trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 39 studies and assessed them for possible inclusion in the review, but we excluded all of them because of insufficient quality or lack of relevance. We summarised evidence from non-randomised studies in the Discussion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Even though CIAP has been clearly described and delineated, no adequate randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical treatment trials have been performed. In their absence there is no proven efficacious drug therapy.
Topics: Aged; Axons; Chronic Disease; Gait Ataxia; Humans; Leg; Polyneuropathies
PubMed: 28631805
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003456.pub3 -
Journal of Neurology Mar 2024Case-reports/series and cohorts of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 vaccination have been reported. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Case-reports/series and cohorts of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 vaccination have been reported.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of GBS after COVID-19 vaccination was carried out. Incidence and incidence rate ratio for a number of vaccine doses and risk of GBS, also considering the specific vaccine technology, were calculated in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Of 554 citations retrieved, 518 were discarded as irrelevant. We finally included 15 studies. The random effect model yielded, regardless of the vaccine technology, 1.25 (95%CI 0.21; 2.83) GBS cases per million of COVID-19 vaccine doses, 3.93 (2.54; 5.54) cases per million doses for adenovirus-vectored vaccines and 0.69 (0.38; 1.06) cases per million doses for mRNA vaccines. The GBS risk was 2.6 times increased with the first dose. Regardless of the vaccine technology, the GBS risk was not increased but disaggregating the data it was 2.37 (1.67; 3.36) times increased for adenovirus-vectored vaccines and 0.32 (0.23; 0.47) for mRNA vaccines. Mortality for GBS after vaccination was 0.10 per million doses and 4.6 per GBS cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Adenovirus-vectored vaccines showed a 2.4 times increased risk of GBS that was about seven times higher compared with mRNA-based vaccines. The decreased GBS risk associated with mRNA vaccines was possibly due to an elicited reduction of infections, including SARS-CoV-2, associated with GBS during the vaccination period. How adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines may trigger GBS is unclear and further studies should investigate the relationship between vaccine technologies and GBS risk.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; mRNA Vaccines; Vaccination
PubMed: 38233678
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-024-12186-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the ability of corticosteroids to hasten recovery and reduce the long-term morbidity from GBS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 12 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone versus placebo or supportive care alone in GBS. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors used standard methods expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors discovered no new trials in the new searches in June 2009, November 2011, or January 2016. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, mean difference (MD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was very low quality evidence of less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, MD 0.82 disability grades less improvement (95% CI 0.17 to 1.47 grades less). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was moderate quality evidence of no significant difference of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39). According to moderate quality evidence, there was also no significant difference between the corticosteroid treated and control groups for improvement by one or more grades after four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) or for death or disability after one year (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.5). We found high quality evidence that the occurrence of diabetes was more common (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.12) and hypertension less common (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) in the corticosteroid-treated participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to very low quality evidence, oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was more common and hypertension less common with corticosteroids based on high quality evidence.
Topics: Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Glucocorticoids; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27775812
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001446.pub5 -
Neurocritical Care Dec 2017Chikungunya fever is a globally spreading mosquito-borne disease that shows an unexpected neurovirulence. Even though the neurological complications have been a major... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chikungunya fever is a globally spreading mosquito-borne disease that shows an unexpected neurovirulence. Even though the neurological complications have been a major cause of intensive care unit admission and death, to date, there is no systematic analysis of their spectrum available.
OBJECTIVE
To review evidence of neurological manifestations in Chikungunya fever and map their epidemiology, clinical spectrum, pathomechanisms, diagnostics, therapies and outcomes.
METHODS
Case report and systematic review of the literature followed established guidelines. All cases found were assessed using a 5-step clinical diagnostic algorithm assigning categories A-C, category A representing the highest level of quality. Only A and B cases were considered for further analysis. After general analysis, cases were clustered according to geospatial criteria for subgroup analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-six of 1196 studies were included, yielding 130 cases. Nine were ranked as category A (diagnosis of Neuro-Chikungunya probable), 55 as B (plausible), and 51 as C (disputable). In 15 cases, alternative diagnoses were more likely. Patient age distribution was bimodal with a mean of 49 years and a second peak in infants. Fifty percent of the cases occurred in patients <45 years with no reported comorbidity. Frequent diagnoses were encephalitis, optic neuropathy, neuroretinitis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neurologic conditions showing characteristics of a direct viral pathomechanism showed a peak in infants and a second one in elder patients, and complications and neurologic sequelae were more frequent in these groups. Autoimmune-mediated conditions appeared mainly in patients over 20 years and tended to show longer latencies and better outcomes. Geospatial subgrouping of case reports from either India or Réunion revealed diverging phenotypic trends (Réunion: 88% direct viral vs. India: 81% autoimmune).
CONCLUSIONS
Direct viral forms of Neuro-Chikungunya seem to occur particularly in infants and elderly patients, while autoimmune forms have to be also considered in middle-aged, previously healthy patients, especially after an asymptomatic interval. This knowledge will help to identify future Neuro-Chikungunya cases and to improve outcome especially in autoimmune-mediated conditions. The genetics of Chikungunya virus might play a key role in determining the course of neuropathogenesis. With further research, this could prove diagnostically significant.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chikungunya Fever; Child; Child, Preschool; Encephalitis; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Humans; Infant; Middle Aged; Optic Nerve Diseases; Retinitis; Young Adult
PubMed: 28741102
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-017-0413-8 -
Cureus Apr 2023Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare but serious immune-mediated neurological condition characterized by damage to the peripheral nervous system. Two-thirds of... (Review)
Review
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare but serious immune-mediated neurological condition characterized by damage to the peripheral nervous system. Two-thirds of cases of GBS are diagnosed following infection; however, vaccination has also been linked to GBS pathogenesis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the prevalence of GBS following vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, describe the clinical and neurophysiological characteristics, and identify potential determinants. A systematic review of the literature regarding post-vaccination GBS was conducted using the PubMed database. Seventy papers were included. The pooled prevalence of GBS after vaccination against COVID-19 per has been established to be 8.1 (95% CI 30-220) per 1,000,000 vaccinations. Vaccination with vector vaccines - but not mRNA - has been associated with an increased risk of GBS. More than 80% of the patients developed GBS within 21 days following the first dose of the vaccination. The interval between the vaccination and GBS was shorter in patients who were vaccinated with mRNA versus vector vaccines (9.7±6.7 days versus 14.2±6.6 days). Epidemiological findings regarding post-vaccination GBS revealed a higher prevalence in males and people between the ages of 40 and 60 years, with a mean age of 56.8±16.1 years. The most common type was the acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy type. Most cases responded well to treatment. In conclusion, vaccination against COVID-19 with vector vaccines seems to increase the risk of GBS. GBS occurring following vaccination does differ in characteristics from GBS during the pre-COVID-19 era.
PubMed: 37193456
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37578 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2024Peripheral and autonomic neuropathy are common disease manifestations in systemic amyloidosis. The neurofilament light chain (NfL), a neuron-specific biomarker, is... (Review)
Review
Peripheral and autonomic neuropathy are common disease manifestations in systemic amyloidosis. The neurofilament light chain (NfL), a neuron-specific biomarker, is released into the blood and cerebrospinal fluid after neuronal damage. There is a need for an early and sensitive blood biomarker for polyneuropathy, and this systematic review provides an overview on the value of NfL in the early detection of neuropathy, central nervous system involvement, the monitoring of neuropathy progression, and treatment effects in systemic amyloidosis. A literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed on 14 February 2024 for studies investigating NfL levels in patients with systemic amyloidosis and transthyretin gene-variant (v) carriers. Only studies containing original data were included. Included were thirteen full-text articles and five abstracts describing 1604 participants: 298 controls and 1306 v carriers or patients with or without polyneuropathy. Patients with polyneuropathy demonstrated higher NfL levels compared to healthy controls and asymptomatic carriers. Disease onset was marked by rising NfL levels. Following the initiation of transthyretin gene-silencer treatment, NfL levels decreased and remained stable over an extended period. NfL is not an outcome biomarker, but an early and sensitive disease-process biomarker for neuropathy in systemic amyloidosis. Therefore, NfL has the potential to be used for the early detection of neuropathy, monitoring treatment effects, and monitoring disease progression in patients with systemic amyloidosis.
Topics: Humans; Prealbumin; Intermediate Filaments; Immunoglobulin Light-chain Amyloidosis; Amyloidosis; Polyneuropathies; Biomarkers
PubMed: 38612579
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25073770 -
Journal of the Peripheral Nervous... Sep 2023Several widely used medications, with a relevant efficacy profile, are toxic to the peripheral nervous system and an even larger number of agents are suspected to be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Several widely used medications, with a relevant efficacy profile, are toxic to the peripheral nervous system and an even larger number of agents are suspected to be neurotoxic. There are concerns about the use of these drugs in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT), a hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy. This review provides evidence-based updated recommendations on this clinically relevant topic.
METHODS
A systematic review of the available studies/reports written in English was performed from July to September 2022 including in the search string all reported putative neurotoxic drugs.
RESULTS
The results of our systematic review provide evidence-based support for the statement that use of vincristine, and possibly paclitaxel, can occasionally induce an atypical, and more severe, course of drug-related peripheral neurotoxicity in CMT patients. It is therefore reasonable to recommend caution in the use of these compounds in CMT patients. However, no convincing evidence for a similar recommendation could be found for all other drugs.
INTERPRETATION
It is important that patients with CMT are not denied effective treatments that may prolong life expectancy for cancer or improve their health status if affected by non-oncological diseases. Accurate monitoring of peripheral nerve function in CMT patients treated with any neurotoxic agent remains mandatory to detect the earliest signs of neuropathy worsening and atypical clinical courses. Neurologists monitoring CMT patients as part of their normal care package or for natural history studies should keep detailed records of exposures to neurotoxic medications and support reporting of accelerated neuropathy progression if observed.
Topics: Humans; Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease; Hereditary Sensory and Motor Neuropathy; Neoplasms; Neurotoxicity Syndromes
PubMed: 37249082
DOI: 10.1111/jns.12566 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2022: Recent findings demonstrate that the transmigration of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to the nervous system implicates severe neurotropic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Recent findings demonstrate that the transmigration of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to the nervous system implicates severe neurotropic pathologies, including the onset of the rare disease called Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) which is characterized by immune-mediated polyneuropathy. This study aimed to identify the predisposing factors and the clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced GBS. : We have performed an analysis of 147 cases. A systematic review of the published research work was performed per the PRISMA statement to obtain individual participant data (IPD) for the meta-analysis. The search was conducted through PubMed, using the combined search terms "Guillain-Barré syndrome" and "COVID-19". All case reports and series in the English language with accessed full text were included in the search. : A systematic database search led to the retrieval of 112 peer-reviewed articles published between 1 April 2020, and 8 February 2022. The articles comprised 16 case series and 96 case reports containing IPD for 147 patients. Our findings showed that 77.6% of all cases were 40 years or older. Males comprised most of the cases (65.3%; = 96). The intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 44.9%, and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) was 38.1%. The patients presented with hyporeflexia or areflexia (84.4%; = 124), lower limb strength and sensation impairment (93.2%; = 138), upper limb strength and sensation impairment (85.7; = 126), and somatic sensation impairment (72.8%; = 107). The patients presented with increased cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) protein levels (92%; = 92) and the presence of CSF albuminocytological dissociation (83.5%; = 71). The most common variant of GBS observed was acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP). We found that predisposing factors concomitant with COVID-19 and GBS were male gender and older age. Among the cases, patient mortality was 10.9%. : A gap of knowledge exists regarding the complete spectrum of clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related GBS. Recent findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 triggers GBS, as it follows a similar para-infectious pattern as the other viral agents contributing to the onset of GBS.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; COVID-19; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2; Intensive Care Units; Rare Diseases
PubMed: 36557036
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58121835