The Profile of Guillain-Barré Syndrome Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic: A 5-Year Experience.
COVID-19
Guillain–Barré syndrome
electrophysiology
Journal
Noro psikiyatri arsivi
ISSN: 1300-0667
Titre abrégé: Noro Psikiyatr Ars
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 9426194
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
16
10
2022
accepted:
13
11
2022
medline:
11
12
2023
pubmed:
11
12
2023
entrez:
11
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical and electrophysiological features of post-COVID-19 Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and non-COVID-19 GBS patients over the last five years. We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with GBS between October 2016 and September 2021. They were divided into five groups according to the flu season and the COVID-19 pandemic. Groups 1-4 were identified as non-COVID-19 groups, whereas Group 5 constituted the post-COVID-19 group. At the sixth month the Hughes functional grading scale score (HFGSS) was noted. Clinical and electrophysiological findings were compared between the groups. Fifty-nine GBS patients were enrolled in this study. Post-COVID-19 GBS patients had more facial diplegia than non-COVID-19 GBS patients. Except for facial diplegia, post-COVID-19 GBS patients did not differ from non-COVID-19 GBS patients regarding the need for mechanical ventilation, loss of ambulation, type of GBS, response to treatment, and patient outcomes. In 67% of post-COVID-19 GBS patients, HFGSS was ≤2. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) was the most common subtype in post-COVID-19 GBS patients. The 2018-2019 flu season saw more ambulation loss than other flu seasons. The 2017-2018 influenza season had the highest number of patients (39%). The clinical and electrophysiological features of GBS may differ according to year, infectious etiology, and severity of seasonal viral infections. Post-COVID-19 GBS patients mostly had the AIDP subtype with frequent facial diplegia. The prognosis of post-COVID-19 GBS patients was good. The patients responded well to treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38077840
doi: 10.29399/npa.28348
pii: archneuro-60-322
pmc: PMC10709707
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
322-326Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Turkish Neuropsychiatric Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest..
Références
Eur J Neurol. 2020 Nov;27(11):2361-2370
pubmed: 32757404
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;88(3):266-271
pubmed: 27799296
Semin Neurol. 2008 Apr;28(2):152-67
pubmed: 18351518
Neurol Sci. 2021 Feb;42(2):607-612
pubmed: 32643136
Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:177-178
pubmed: 32445789
J Neurol. 2021 Apr;268(4):1133-1170
pubmed: 32840686
Can J Neurol Sci. 2022 Jan;49(1):38-48
pubmed: 33949300
Trop Med Int Health. 2019 Feb;24(2):132-142
pubmed: 30444562
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Jul;6(7):589-94
pubmed: 17537676
Ann Neurol. 2021 Mar;89(3):598-603
pubmed: 33295021
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 Jul;92(7):751-756
pubmed: 33158914
Lancet Neurol. 2020 May;19(5):383-384
pubmed: 32246917
Eur J Neurol. 2022 Nov;29(11):3358-3367
pubmed: 35837806
Curr Opin Neurol. 2017 Oct;30(5):500-507
pubmed: 28617719
Neurophysiol Clin. 2021 Mar;51(2):183-191
pubmed: 33685769
Neurology. 1998 Oct;51(4):1110-5
pubmed: 9781538
Muscle Nerve. 1995 Feb;18(2):137-53
pubmed: 7823972
Muscle Nerve. 2020 Oct;62(4):485-491
pubmed: 32678460
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;103:420-422
pubmed: 33217570