Patient group | Age | Sex | Preceding events | Days from onset | Disability grade at sample date | Worst sensory grade | IgM anti-GM1 ab | IgM anti-GM2 ab | IgM anti-GD1a ab | IgM anti-GD1b ab |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV+GBS: | ||||||||||
1 | 22 | M | URTI | 7 | 5 | 1 | −(−) | +(+) | −(−) | −(−) |
2 | 31 | F | URTI | 9 | 5 | 3 | ±(−) | +(+) | w(−) | −(−) |
3 | 15 | F | URTI | 7 | 5 | 2 | − | − | − | − |
4 | 21 | F | None | 18 | 2 | 1 | −(−) | −(+) | −(−) | −(−) |
5 | 26 | M | None | 14 | 4 | 2 | −(−) | +(+) | w(+) | −(−) |
6 | 29 | M | Flu vac | 8 | 4 | 3 | +(+) | +(+) | −(−) | +(w) |
7 | 26 | M | URTI | 14 | 4 | 1 | ±(−) | −(−) | w(−) | −(−) |
8 | 71 | M | URTI | 4 | 4 | 1 | − | − | − | − |
9 | 17 | F | URTI | 12 | 4 | 1 | ±(+) | +(+) | −(−) | −(−) |
10 | 48 | F | Operation | 8 | 5 | 1 | ±(+) | −(−) | −(−) | −(−) |
11 | 58 | F | URTI | 12 | 5 | 3 | −(−) | −(−) | −(−) | −(−) |
12 | 13 | F | None | 14 | 4 | 1 | +(+) | +(+) | +(+) | +(+) |
13 | 19 | F | URTI | 9 | 2 | 1 | −(−) | −(−) | +(+) | −(−) |
14 | 21 | F | None | 8 | 5 | 1 | − | − | − | − |
n=14 | 30 (17) | 5M, 9F | 10(4) | 4(1) | 2(1) | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | |
CMV-GBS: | ||||||||||
n=12 | 33 (22) | 7M, 5F | 11(6) | 4(1) | 2(1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Values ( ) in the last two rows are mean (SD).
+=positive (a value greater than the NC mean+3 SD); w=weak positive, ±=border line, (+) or (−)=positive or negative by TLC; URTI=upper respiratory tract infection; ab=antibody; vac=vaccine.
Patient 2, but none of the others, had serological evidence of a recentCampylobacter jejuni infection.
An ELISA negative serum (patient 4) gave a positive band in TLC. This might be due to a difference in the epitope specificity of the antibody, but as this result was not confirmed by both methods, it was not regarded as positive.
Patient 8, but none of the others, had positive IgG antibodies to GM1 and GD1b.