Comparison of automated office blood pressure measurement with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement.

PURPOSE: Although 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement (24-h ABPM) is the most important method to establish true hypertension, in clinical practice often repeated automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements are used because of convenience and lower costs. We aimed to assess the agreement rate between a 30 and 60 min AOBP and 24-h ABPM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with known hypertension (cohort 1) and patients visiting the neurology outpatient clinic after minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack (cohort 2) were selected. We performed AOBP for 30-60 min at 5-min intervals followed by 24-h ABPM and calculated average values of both measurements. Agreement between the two methods was studied with McNemar and Bland-Altman plots with a clinically relevant limit of agreement of ≤10 mm Hg difference in systolic BP. RESULTS: Our final cohort consisted of 135 patients from cohort 1 and 72 patients from cohort 2. We found relatively low agreement based on the clinical relevant cut-off value; 64.7% of the measurements were within the limits of agreement for 24-h systolic and 50.2% for 24-h diastolic. This was 61.4% for daytime systolic and 56.6% for daytime diastolic. In 73.5% of the patients, both methods led to the same diagnosis of either being hypertensive or non-hypertensive. This resulted in a significant difference between the methods to determine the diagnosis of hypertension (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that 30-60 min AOBP measurements cannot replace a 24-h ABPM and propose to perform 24-h ABPM at least on a yearly basis to confirm AOBP measurements.

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for mild Guillain-Barré syndrome: an international observational study.

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.

Original research: Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis: the non-randomised ISID study.

OBJECTIVE: To 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. METHODS: From 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.

Regional variation of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

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.

Treatment dilemmas in Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy with a highly variable clinical course and outcome. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and plasma exchange are proven effective treatments, but the efficacy has been demonstrated mainly on motor improvement in adults with a typical and severe form of GBS. In clinical practice, treatment dilemmas may occur in patients with a relatively mild presentation, variant forms of GBS, or when the onset of weakness was more than 2 weeks ago. Other therapeutic dilemmas may arise in patients who do not improve or even progress after initial treatment. We provide an overview of the current literature about therapeutic options in these situations, and additionally give our personal view that may serve as a basis for therapeutic decision-making.

Prediction of disease progression in Miller Fisher and overlap syndromes.

Patients with Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) may have a relatively mild clinical course or progress to Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) with limb weakness (MFS-GBS overlap syndrome). Other variants in this spectrum are GBS with ophthalmoparesis and Bickerstaff's Brainstem encephalitis (BBE). To compare the clinical course of MFS and overlap syndromes and to identify predictors of disease progression. In a prospective study of 170 patients with GBS and variant forms, 37 (22%) had a MFS, MFS-GBS overlap syndrome, ophthalmoplegic GBS or BBE. The clinical, serological, and electrophysiological features were compared. Twenty-three patients presented with MFS, of which 10 (43%) developed limb weakness (MFS-GBS overlap syndrome). All these transitions occurred in the first week after onset of symptoms. There were no differences in the clinical, electrophysiological and serological features at entry between MFS and MFS-GBS. Twelve patients had ophthalmoplegic GBS and the disease severity at nadir and outcome was worse than in the patients with a MFS-GBS overlap syndrome. No early predictors for progression from MFS to MFS-GBS overlap syndrome were found. All transitions occurred in the first week. This finding implicates that all patients with MFS need careful monitoring for at least 1 week.

International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study: protocol of a prospective observational cohort study on clinical and biological predictors of disease course and outcome in Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Guillain-Barré 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.

CSF Findings in Relation to Clinical Characteristics, Subtype, and Disease Course in Patients With Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate CSF findings in relation to clinical and electrodiagnostic subtypes, severity, and outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) based on 1,500 patients in the International GBS Outcome Study. METHODS: Albuminocytologic dissociation (ACD) was defined as an increased protein level (>0.45 g/L) in the absence of elevated white cell count (<50 cells/µL). We excluded 124 (8%) patients because of other diagnoses, protocol violation, or insufficient data. The CSF was examined in 1,231 patients (89%). RESULTS: In 846 (70%) patients, CSF examination showed ACD, which increased with time from weakness onset: ≤4 days 57%, >4 days 84%. High CSF protein levels were associated with a demyelinating subtype, proximal or global muscle weakness, and a reduced likelihood of being able to run at week 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70; p = 0.001) and week 4 (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.72; p = 0.001). Patients with the Miller Fisher syndrome, distal predominant weakness, and normal or equivocal nerve conduction studies were more likely to have lower CSF protein levels. CSF cell count was <5 cells/µL in 1,005 patients (83%), 5-49 cells/µL in 200 patients (16%), and ≥50 cells/µL in 13 patients (1%). DISCUSSION: ACD is a common finding in GBS, but normal protein levels do not exclude this diagnosis. High CSF protein level is associated with an early severe disease course and a demyelinating subtype. Elevated CSF cell count, rarely ≥50 cells/µL, is compatible with GBS after a thorough exclusion of alternative diagnoses. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that CSF ACD (defined by the Brighton Collaboration) is common in patients with GBS.

Predicting Outcome in Guillain-Barré Syndrome: International Validation of the Modified Erasmus GBS Outcome Score.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The clinical course and outcome of the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) are diverse and vary among regions. The modified Erasmus GBS Outcome Score (mEGOS), developed with data from Dutch patients, is a clinical model that predicts the risk of walking inability in patients with GBS. The study objective was to validate the mEGOS in the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) cohort and to improve its performance and region specificity. METHODS: We used prospective data from the first 1,500 patients included in IGOS, aged ≥6 years and unable to walk independently. We evaluated whether the mEGOS at entry and week 1 could predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in the full cohort and in regional subgroups, using 2 measures for model performance: (1) discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and (2) calibration: observed vs predicted probability of being unable to walk independently. To improve the model predictions, we recalibrated the model containing the overall mEGOS score, without changing the individual predictive factors. Finally, we assessed the predictive ability of the individual factors. RESULTS: For validation of mEGOS at entry, 809 patients were eligible (Europe/North America [n = 677], Asia [n = 76], other [n = 56]), and 671 for validation of mEGOS at week 1 (Europe/North America [n = 563], Asia [n = 65], other [n = 43]). AUC values were >0.7 in all regional subgroups. In the Europe/North America subgroup, observed outcomes were worse than predicted; in Asia, observed outcomes were better than predicted. Recalibration improved model accuracy and enabled the development of a region-specific version for Europe/North America (mEGOS-Eu/NA). Similar to the original mEGOS, severe limb weakness and higher age were the predominant predictors of poor outcome in the IGOS cohort. DISCUSSION: mEGOS is a validated tool to predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS, also in countries outside the Netherlands. We developed a region-specific version of mEGOS for patients from Europe/North America. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that the mEGOS accurately predicts the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: NCT01582763.

Electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barre syndrome in the International GBS Outcome Study: Differences in methods and reference values.

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.

Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with one standard dose (2 g/kg) of intravenous immunoglobulin is insufficient in a proportion of patients with severe Guillain-Barré syndrome. Worldwide, around 25% of patients severely affected with the syndrome are given a second intravenous immunoglobulin dose (SID), although it has not been proven effective. We aimed to investigate whether a SID is effective in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a predicted poor outcome. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SID-GBS), we included patients (≥12 years) with Guillain-Barré syndrome admitted to one of 59 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were included on the first day of standard intravenous immunoglobulin treatment (2 g/kg over 5 days). Only patients with a poor prognosis (score of ≥6) according to the modified Erasmus Guillain-Barré syndrome Outcome Score were randomly assigned, via block randomisation stratified by centre, to SID (2 g/kg over 5 days) or to placebo, 7-9 days after inclusion. Patients, outcome adjudicators, monitors, and the steering committee were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score 4 weeks after inclusion. All patients in whom allocated trial medication was started were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR 2224/NL2107. FINDINGS: Between Feb 16, 2010, and June 5, 2018, 327 of 339 patients assessed for eligibility were included. 112 had a poor prognosis. Of those, 93 patients with a poor prognosis were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 (53%) received SID and 44 (47%) received placebo. The adjusted common odds ratio for improvement on the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score at 4 weeks was 1·4 (95% CI 0·6-3·3; p=0·45). Patients given SID had more serious adverse events (35% vs 16% in the first 30 days), including thromboembolic events, than those in the placebo group. Four patients died in the intervention group (13-24 weeks after randomisation). INTERPRETATION: Our study does not provide evidence that patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a poor prognosis benefit from a second intravenous immunoglobulin course; moreover, it entails a risk of serious adverse events. Therefore, a second intravenous immunoglobulin course should not be considered for treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome because of a poor prognosis. The results indicate the need for treatment trials with other immune modulators in patients severely affected by Guillain-Barré syndrome. FUNDING: Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds and Sanquin Plasma Products.

Current treatment practice of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To define the current treatment practice of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). METHODS: The study was based on prospective observational data from the first 1,300 patients included in the International GBS Outcome Study. We described the treatment practice of GBS in general, and for (1) severe forms (unable to walk independently), (2) no recovery after initial treatment, (3) treatment-related fluctuations, (4) mild forms (able to walk independently), and (5) variant forms including Miller Fisher syndrome, taking patient characteristics and hospital type into account. RESULTS: We excluded 88 (7%) patients because of missing data, protocol violation, or alternative diagnosis. Patients from Bangladesh (n = 189, 15%) were described separately because 83% were not treated. IV immunoglobulin (IVIg), plasma exchange (PE), or other immunotherapy was provided in 941 (92%) of the remaining 1,023 patients, including patients with severe GBS (724/743, 97%), mild GBS (126/168, 75%), Miller Fisher syndrome (53/70, 76%), and other variants (33/40, 83%). Of 235 (32%) patients who did not improve after their initial treatment, 82 (35%) received a second immune modulatory treatment. A treatment-related fluctuation was observed in 53 (5%) of 1,023 patients, of whom 36 (68%) were re-treated with IVIg or PE. CONCLUSIONS: In current practice, patients with mild and variant forms of GBS, or with treatment-related fluctuations and treatment failures, are frequently treated, even in absence of trial data to support this choice. The variability in treatment practice can be explained in part by the lack of evidence and guidelines for effective treatment in these situations.