Guillain‐Barré syndrome associated with SARS‐CoV ‐2 infection: A systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

<p class="first" id="d145535e144">Several published reports have described a possible association between Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. This systematic review aimed to summarize and meta-analyze the salient features and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2-associated GBS. We searched the PubMed (Medline), Web of Science and Cochrane databases for articles published between 01 January 2020 and 05 August 2020 using SARS-CoV-2 and GBS-related keywords. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, antecedent symptoms, clinical, serological and electrophysiological features, and hospital outcomes were recorded. We included 45 articles from 16 countries reporting 61 patients with SARS-CoV-2-associated GBS. Most (97.7%) articles were from high- and upper-middle-income countries. Forty-two (68.9%) of the patients were male; median (interquartile range) age was 57 (49-70) years. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 was positive in 90.2% of patients. One report of SARS-CoV-2-associated familial GBS was found which affected a father and daughter of a family. Albuminocytological dissociation in cerebrospinal fluid was found in 80.8% of patients. The majority of patients (75.5%) had a demyelinating subtype of GBS. Intravenous immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis were given to 92.7% and 7.3% of patients, respectively. Around two-thirds (65.3%) of patients had a good outcome (GBS-disability score ≤ 2) on discharge from hospital. Two patients died in hospital. SARS-CoV-2-associated GBS mostly resembles the classical presentations of GBS that respond to standard treatments. Extensive surveillance is required in low- and lower-middle-income countries to identify and report similar cases/series. Further large-scale case-control studies are warranted to strengthen the current evidence. PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42020201673. </p>

Related collections

Most cited references 60

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China

Chaolin Huang, Yeming Wang, Xingwang Li … (2020)

Summary Background A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients. Methods All patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not. Findings By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0–13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα. Interpretation The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies. Funding Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

0 comments Cited 21783 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke … (2017)

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

0 comments Cited 5777 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz … (2017)

Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.