Guillain–Barré syndrome spectrum associated with COVID-19: an up-to-date systematic review of 73 cases

Since coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in January 2020, several pieces of evidence suggested an association between the spectrum of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most findings were reported in the form of case reports or case series, whereas a comprehensive overview is still lacking. We conducted a systematic review and searched for all published cases until July 20th 2020. We included 73 patients reported in 52 publications. A broad age range was affected (mean 55, min 11–max 94 years) with male predominance (68.5%). Most patients showed respiratory and/or systemic symptoms, and developed GBS manifestations after COVID-19. However, asymptomatic cases for COVID-19 were also described. The distributions of clinical variants and electrophysiological subtypes resemble those of classic GBS, with a higher prevalence of the classic sensorimotor form and the acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, although rare variants like Miller Fisher syndrome were also reported. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) albuminocytological dissociation was present in around 71% cases, and CSF SARS-CoV-2 RNA was absent in all tested cases. More than 70% of patients showed a good prognosis, mostly after treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin. Patients with less favorable outcome were associated with a significantly older age in accordance with previous findings regarding both classic GBS and COVID-19. COVID-19-associated GBS seems to share most features of classic post-infectious GBS and possibly the same immune-mediated pathogenetic mechanisms. Nevertheless, more extensive epidemiological studies are needed to clarify these issues.


Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread around the world from Jan-2020, with more than 14,000,000 cases confirmed so far [1]. Although primary affecting the respiratory system, central and peripheral neurological manifestations associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have been increasingly reported [2][3][4]. In detail, several pieces of evidence suggested an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) .
With this background, our systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive and updated overview of all case reports and series of COVID-19-related GBS to identify predominant clinical, laboratory, and neurophysiological patterns and to discuss the possible underlying pathophysiology.

Methods
We performed a systematic review according to the SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis) analytic framework [65]. We screened in PubMed and Google Scholar databases for all case descriptions of GBS associated with COVID-19 that were published from January 1st 2020 up to July 20th 2020. Keywords (including all commonly used abbreviations of these terms) used in the search strategy were as follows: ["acute autoimmune neuropathy" OR "acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy" OR "acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy," OR "acute inflammatory polyneuropathy" OR "Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy" OR "Guillain-Barre Syndrome" OR "Guillain-Barre" OR ""Miller-Fisher" OR "Bickerstaff encephalitis" OR "AIDP" OR "AMAN" OR "AMSAN" OR polyneuritis cranialis] AND ["COVID-19" OR "Wuhan coronavirus" OR "novel coronavirus" OR "novel coronavirus 2019" OR "SARS" OR "SARS-CoV-2"]. Suitable references were also identified in the authors' archives of scientific literature on GBS. We restricted our search to studies published in English, Spanish, or Italian. Publications that were not peer-reviewed were excluded from this study. PRISMA criteria were applied. For each case, we extracted data concerning demographic and clinical variables, results of diagnostic investigations, and outcome. If the GBS clinical variant [57] or the electrophysiological subtype [61] was not explicitly reported in the paper, we reconstructed it, when possible, from reported details. We also classified the diagnostic certainty of all cases according to the Brighton Criteria [66]. Searches were performed by SAR, AA, and MF. The selection of relevant articles was shared with all authors.
For statistical analysis, we used IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Based on the distribution of values, continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or as median and interquartile range (IQR). Depending on the number of groups and data distribution, we applied the t test, the Mann-Whitney U test or the Kruskal-Wallis test (followed by Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test). All reported p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. We adopted the Chi-square test for categorical variables. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.
For the present study, no authorization to an Ethics Committee was asked, because the original reports, nor this work, provided any personal information of the patients.

Results
Our literature search identified 101 papers, including 37 case reports, 12 case series, 3 reviews with case reports, 42 reviews, 4 letters, 1 original article, 1 point of view, and 1 brief report. Four and one patients were excluded from the analysis because of a missing laboratory-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection or an ambiguous GBS diagnosis [disease course resembling chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy (CIDP)], respectively. A total of 52 studies were included in the final analysis (total patients = 73) . All data concerning the analyzed patients are reported in Table 1. For one case [20], most clinical and diagnostic details were not reported; therefore, many of our analyses were limited to 72 patients.
Furthermore, anti-GD1b and anti-GM1 antibodies were positive in one patient with MFS [23] and in one with classic sensorimotor GBS [13], respectively, whereas 33 cases tested negative (one in equivocal range) for anti-ganglioside antibodies.
Interestingly, patients with no improvement or poor outcome (n = 19) showed a slightly higher (but not significant) frequency of clinical history and/or a radiological picture of COVID-19 pneumonia (14/19, 73.7%) compared to those with a favorable prognosis (29/48, 60.4%, p = 0.541). Moreover, the former group of patients was significantly older (mean 62.7 ± 17.8 years, p = 0.011), but with comparable distribution of sex (p = 0.622) and electrophysiological subtypes (p = 0.144) and similar latency between COVID-19 and GBS (p = 0.588) and nadir (p = 0.825), compared to the latter (mean age 51.8 ± 16.6 years). The same findings were confirmed even after excluding cases with no improvement from the analysis (to prevent a possible bias related to the short follow-up time).

Discussion
COVID-19 pandemic prompts all efforts for the early recognition and treatment of its manifestations. In analogy to other viruses, belonging or not to the coronavirus family [63,67], neurologic complications in COVID-19 are emerging as one of the most significant clinical chapters of this pandemic. In this regard, peripheral and central nervous system damage in COVID-19 has been postulated to be the consequence of two different mechanisms: 1) hematogenous (infection of endothelial cells or leucocytes) or trans-neuronal (via olfactory tract or other cranial nerves) dissemination to central nervous system in relation with viral neurotropism, and 2) abnormal immune-mediated response causing secondary neurological involvement [62,68,69]. The first mechanism is supposed to be responsible for the most common neurological symptoms developed by patients with COVID-19 (e.g., hypogeusia, hyposmia, headache, vertigo, and dizziness). In contrast, the second can lead to severe complications during or after the course of the illness, either dysimmune (e.g., myelitis, encephalitis, GBS) or induced by cytokine overproduction (hypercoagulable state and cerebrovascular events) [68,69].
In the present systematic review, we reviewed clinical features, results of diagnostic investigations, and outcome in 73 cases of COVID-19-associated GBS spectrum .
In the present study, mean age at onset in patients with GBS largely overlapped that of classic COVID-19 subjects [70,71]. However, pediatric cases with GBS have been increasingly reported in the literature [21,27,35,41], suggesting that, with the spreading of the pandemic, a broader age range might be affected. Moreover, we found a higher prevalence of GBS in males compared to females, as previously reported for Zika virus-GBS [72]. This finding may also reflect the gender epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. In this regard, males typically show a worse COVID-19 outcome compared to the females [70,71], possibly due to a generally shorter life expectancy or to higher circulating Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme 2 (ACE2) levels, the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2, in the former compared to the latter [71]. Moreover, given that GBS is a rare disease [57] the epidemiological distribution of the reported cases seems to reflect current worldwide outbreaks, with Europe being the "hottest" spot in March-May 2020 and USA together with Asia in the following period [73,74]. On another issue, despite a few GBS cases seemed to have a para-infectious profile [10,37,38,40,55,56] as described for Zika virus [75], all other reported patients developed neurological symptoms with a typical latency after COVID-19 (median time 14 days). This feature, together with the frequently reported negative nasopharyngeal swab at GBS onset [22,24,36,44,45,52] and clinical improvement after IVIG therapy, seems to support Time to Nadir refers to days elapsed between the onset of neurological symptoms and the development of the worst clinical picture when no progression was reported nadir was considered concomitant with GBS symptoms onset b According to Brighton diagnostic criteria [66] GBS, the same finding was less frequently reported [84]. However, caution should be warranted in the interpretation of these results, given that MRI findings might have been underestimated, due to lack of a sufficient number of exams in the context of pandemic-imposed restrictions in the routine clinical setting.
Regarding the distribution of GBS electrophysiological variants, our analysis showed that COVID-19-associated GBS manifests prevalently with AIDP and, to a lesser extent, with AMSAN and AMAN, in line with classic GBS in Western countries [66,85]. Conversely, the observation of positive anti-GD1b antibodies in one COVID-19-related MFS patient and negative anti-ganglioside antibodies in other five cases appear in discordance with the high prevalence (≈ 90%) of anti-GQ1b antibodies among non-COVID-19 MFS cases [86], and may suggest different immune-mediated mechanisms. However, these results could not be generalized until a wider population would be tested.
In analogy to classic GBS, approximately one-fifth of COVID-19-associated GBS subjects required mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation [87]. In this regard, cases with no improvement or unfavorable outcome showed, in comparison to those with a good prognosis, an older age, confirming similar findings both in classic GBS [58,88] and in COVID-19 [89], and a slightly higher frequency (without reaching a statistical significance) of past or concurrent COVID-19 pneumonia. However, given the short follow-up time in most cases, we could not reach a definite conclusion on the impact of past or concurrent COVID-19 restrictive syndrome due to pneumonia on the prognosis of GBS patients. Future prospective studies are needed to clarify this issue. Moreover, given that also preceding diarrhea (mostly caused by Campylobacter Jejuni infection) is a strong negative prognostic factor in classic GBS [57,88], further prospective studies are needed to compare the severity of GBS related to COVID-19 to that associated with C. jejuni. Finally, in the context of respiratory failure and ventilation associated with COVID-19, the differential diagnosis should always take into consideration critical illness neuropathy and myopathy, which tend to develop later during the critical course [90]. Despite these findings, approximately one-third of COVID-19-related GBS patients showed no clinical and/ or radiological evidence of pneumonia, providing evidence that GBS may also develop in the context of a paucisymptomatic or even asymptomatic COVID-19. However, given that among the GBS population only two asymptomatic COVID-19 patients were reported to date, we may speculate that, in most cases, a certain degree of lung injury (even minimal) or at least hematic dissemination (e.g., fever underlying significant viral load) is necessary to trigger the immuno-mediated process through lymphocytic recognition of self-antigens or molecular mimicry. the notion of a prominent post-infectious immune-mediated mechanism. However, in this context, the massive release of cytokines in COVID-19 may also contribute to the amplification of the dysimmune process underlying GBS [76,77]. In this regard, the increase of blood inflammatory markers (e.g., CRP, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1, etc.) in GBS tested cases may reinforce the hypothesis of a systemic inflammatory storm in COVID-19 [76,77]. However, given the limited data, we could not perform an accurate analysis of the distribution and, eventually, prognostic value of inflammatory markers in COVID-19-associated GBS. Moreover, we cannot exclude that in cases with GBS developing before or together with COVID-19 symptoms, the disease might have progressed sub-clinically in the early phase to manifest afterwards with its typical systemic clinical picture. Indeed, two cases [10,12], who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, never developed COVID-19 respiratory or systemic symptoms and one of them showed an asymptomatic pneumonia at chest-CT [12]. However, only more extensive epidemiological and translational studies, with the aim to compare the characteristics of GBS associated or not with COVID-19, could clarify these issues.
In our population, most common clinical manifestations and distribution of clinical variants resemble those of classic GBS confirming the predominance of the sensorimotor syndrome compared to MFS and other rare variants [57][58][59]66]. Similarly, the results of CSF analysis reflected typical neurochemical findings in non-COVID-19 GBS. In the latter, elevated CSF proteins and pleocytosis were described in about 50-80% [57,78] and 11-15% cases, respectively [58,79,80], largely overlapping with the percentages in our cohort. In this regard, the mostly normal cell count, together with the absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in all tested CSF samples [6-9, 12-14, 16, 21-24, 31, 33, 36, 42, 44, 52, 55], makes the possibility of a direct invasion from SARS-CoV-2 into the nerve roots with intrathecal viral replication less probable. However, a possible bias might rely on the lack of systematic data concerning the latency between symptom onset and CSF sampling in COVID-19 GBS cases. On another issue, in a further case of MFS associated with-COVID-19, who came to our attention, we observed the absence of intrathecal synthesis of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies together with a massive increase of CSF phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain (pNfH) and serum neurofilament light chain (NfL) proteins, supporting the role of neurochemical markers as easily implementable tools for the detection of nervous system affection in COVID-19-related diseases [81,82].
At variance with CSF findings, we found a discrepancy concerning MRI findings between classic GBS and COVID-19-related GBS. Specifically, while most cases of the former group showed typically spinal root enhancement at MRI [83], in the latter group, in analogy with Zika-associated Major strengths of our review are the inclusion of a high number of patients, together with an in-depth analysis of the clinical and diagnostic features of COVID-19-associated GBS. We are aware that selection bias might have occurred, given that most reported cases to date have been described mostly in Europe (47 out of 73) and during COVID-19 highest spreading. Therefore, future extensive epidemiological studies are necessary to ascertain the nature of the association between COVID-19 and GBS (causal or coincidental). Moreover, we cannot exclude the possibility that at least some of the cases represent instances of CIDP, given the frequent absence of a follow-up longer than 2 months. On another issue, the low but possible evidence of an epidemiological link between vaccines and GBS development [57,58] should aware the clinicians of the possible occurrence of GBS after COVID-19 vaccination in the long-term future.
In conclusion, based on the systematic review of 73 cases, we showed that the clinical picture of COVID-19-associated GBS seems to resemble that of classic GBS or Zikaassociated GBS. Moreover, the chronological evolution, the response to IVIG, and the absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in CSF may suggest a prominent post-infectious immunemediated mechanism rather than a para-infectious one. Although most cases were symptomatic for COVID-19, the preliminary report of a few patients without respiratory or systemic symptoms raises a significant healthcare issue, namely the importance of SARS-CoV-2 testing in all patients with suspected GBS during the pandemic, with the aim to provide an eventual rapid case isolation. Nevertheless, only further analyses on more comprehensive cohorts could help in clarifying better all these issues. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/.