Guillain-Barre syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
JOURNAL OF THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
Authors: Hasan, Imran; Saif-Ur-Rahman, K. M.; Hayat, Shoma; Papri, Nowshin; Jahan, Israt; Azam, Rufydha; Ara, Gulshan; Islam, Zhahirul
Several published reports have described a possible association between Guillain-Barre 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.
Self-Collected Anterior Nasal and Saliva Specimens versus Health Care Worker-Collected Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Authors: Hanson, K. E.; Barker, A. P.; Hillyard, D. R.; Gilmore, N.; Barrett, J. W.; Orlandi, R. R.; Shakir, S. M.
We prospectively compared health care worker-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) to self-collected anterior nasal swabs (ANS) and straight saliva for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 354 patients. The percent positive agreement between NPS and ANS or saliva was 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 86.0 to 97.9%), respectively. The percent negative agreement was 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0 to 100.0%) for NPS versus ANS and 97.8% (95% CI, 95.3 to 99.2%) for NPS versus saliva. More cases were detected by the use of NPS (n = 80) and saliva (n = 81) than by the use of ANS (n = 70), but no single specimen type detected all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.