Guillain–Barré syndrome in Denmark: a population-based study on epidemiology, diagnosis and clinical severity
- 27 Downloads
To describe the epidemiology and clinical heterogeneity of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) in Denmark and to compare a population-based cohort to prospectively included patients in the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS).
The incidence rate (IR) of GBS in Denmark from September 2012 to December 2015, applying the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) diagnostic criteria, was estimated and the level of diagnostic certainty was described with the Brighton criteria. All cases registered with a diagnosis of GBS or other inflammatory neuropathies in the Danish National Hospital Registry were reviewed for diagnostic criteria and for information on treatment and clinical course.
A total of 299 GBS cases were confirmed, corresponding to a crude IR of 1.59 (95% CI 1.42–1.78) per 100,000 per year. The Brighton criteria level 1–3 of diagnostic certainty was met in 279 (93%) of the patients. Thirty-five percent of the patients were mildly affected (GBS disability score < 3) and a correlation between high age and high disability score at nadir was found (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient 0.42, p < 0.0001). The group of 89 (30%) patients who were enrolled in IGOS had higher GBS disability score at nadir, were admitted 5 days earlier, reached nadir 4 days faster, and a larger proportion received treatment with IVIg (all p < 0.05).
The epidemiology and full clinical spectrum of GBS are described in a population-based study. This includes a larger proportion of milder cases that are underrepresented in prospective cohorts such as IGOS.
KeywordsGuillain–Barré syndrome Epidemiology Brighton criteria International GBS outcome study IGOS
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors received no specific funding for this work. Thomas Harbo has received speakers’ honoraria from CSL Behring. Bart Jacobs reports grants from Baxalta, grants from Grifols, grants from CSL-Behring, grants from Annexon, grants from Prinses-Beatrix Spierfonds, grants from GBS-CIDP Foundation International, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors report no competing interests.
The manuscript does not contain patient data. Permission to obtain and process data was granted by the Danish Data Protection Agency [reference number 1-16-02-3-16] and the Danish Patient Safety Authority [reference number 3-3013-1449/1/].
- 2.Dornonville de la Cour C, Jakobsen J (2005) Residual neuropathy in long-term population-based follow-up of Guillain–Barré syndrome. Neurology 64:246–253. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000149521.65474.83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Hughes RA, Swan AV, van Doorn PA (2014) Intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain–Barré syndrome. In: Hughes RA (ed) Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 4.Raphaël JC, Chevret S, Hughes RA, Annane D (2002) Plasma exchange for Guillain–Barré syndrome. In: Annane D (ed) Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 10.Jacobs BC, van den Berg B, Verboon C et al (2017) International Guillain–Barre Syndrome Outcome Study (IGOS): protocol of a prospective observational cohort study on clinical and biological predictors of disease course and outcome in Guillain–Barre syndrome. J Peripher Nerv Syst. https://doi.org/10.1111/jns.12209 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Statistics Denmark (2017) Statbank Denmark. http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280. Accessed 16 April 2017
- 28.Asbury AK, Asbury A, Carrell-Krusen Symposium invited lecture new concepts of Guillain–Barré syndromeGoogle Scholar