An audit on the clinical and laboratory profile of patients with different variants of Guillain-Barre syndrome and effect of various treatment strategies on their recovery

Abhijit Prithviraj Chavan; Suhrud Jayadev Panchawagh; Abhijit Ramratan Pundkar; Jitendra R. Ingole

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20231425

Authors

Abhijit Prithviraj Chavan Department of Medicine, Smt.Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1110-2151
Suhrud Jayadev Panchawagh Department of Medicine, Smt.Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8606-4202
Abhijit Ramratan Pundkar Department of Medicine, Smt.Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3596-5222
Jitendra R. Ingole Department of Medicine, Smt.Kashibai Navale Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3434-7235

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20231425

Keywords:

GBS, Demyelination, Apheresis, IVIg

Abstract

Background: Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is an immune-mediated disorder of the peripheral nervous system, causing muscle weakness, paralysis, and sensory deficits. Its treatment mainly involves supportive care, immunomodulatory therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and plasma exchange (PE), and rehabilitation. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have evaluated the efficacy and safety of apheresis in GBS, but the results have been conflicting and limited by methodological issues.

Methods: This is a retrospective study with a sample of 30 patients carried out at neurology OPD of tertiary care centre in Pune, Maharashtra over a period of 32 months from July 2020 and February 2023. Patients were followed up for six months, and their outcomes were compared in terms of the improvement of clinical disability scores, the need for mechanical ventilation, and the time to recovery of walking ability and other functional outcomes.

Results: Apheresis treatment significantly improved the clinical disability scores and NCV recovery of patients with GBS in comparison to IVIg and corticosteroids. Moreover, patients who received apheresis treatment showed a shorter time to recovery of walking ability and other functional outcomes than those who did not. Symptomatic differences were seen between patients with different subtypes of GBS, but there was no difference in the response to apheresis or IVIg between subtypes.

Conclusions: Treatment with apheresis should be considered in patients not responding to conservative management. Earlier treatment with apheresis has shown to have good clinical and electrophysiological outcomes regardless of the GBS subtype.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Nguyen TP, Taylor RS. Guillain Barre Syndrome. StatPearls. 2023.

Esteghamati A, Gouya MM, Keshtkar AA, Mahoney F. Relationship between occurrence of Guillain-Barre syndrome and mass campaign of measles and rubella immunization in Iranian 5-14 years old children. Vaccine. 2008;26(39):5058-61.

Van Den Berg B, Walgaard C, Drenthen J, Fokke C, Jacobs BC, Van Doorn PA. Guillain-Barré syndrome: pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10(8):469-82.

Leonhard SE, Mandarakas MR, Gondim FAA, Bateman K, Ferreira MLB, Cornblath DR et al. Diagnosis and management of Guillain–Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nature Reviews Neurol. 2019;15(11):671-83.

Yuki N, Hartung HP. Guillain-Barré syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2294-304.

van Doorn PA, Kuitwaard K, Walgaard C, van Koningsveld R, Ruts L, Jacobs BC. IVIG treatment and prognosis in Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Clin Immunol. 2010;30(Suppl 1,Suppl 1):S74-8.

Hughes RAC, Cornblath DR. Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet. 2005;366(9497):1653-66.

Chevret S, Hughes RAC, Annane D. Plasma exchange for Guillain‐Barré syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2017(2).

Rodríguez Y, Rojas M, Pacheco Y, Acosta-Ampudia Y, Ramírez-Santana C, Monsalve DM et al. Guillain–Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis and infectious diseases. Cell Mol Immunol 2018;15(6):547.

Chevret S, Hughes RAC, Annane D. Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2).

Harms M. Inpatient management of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neurohospitalist. 2011;1(2):78-84.

Raphaël JC, Chevret S, Hughes RA, Annane D. Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(7):CD001798.

Schröder A, Linker RA, Gold R. Plasmapheresis for neurological disorders. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9(9):1331-9.

Ho TW, Li CY, Cornblath DR, Gao CY, Asbury AK, Griffin JW et al. Patterns of recovery in the Guillain-Barre syndromes. Neurology. 1997;48(3):695-700.

Dimachkie MM, Barohn RJ. Guillain-Barré syndrome and variants. Neurol Clin. 2013;31(2):491-510.

Rajabally YA. Treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome: a review. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets. 2012;11(4):330-4.

Van Doorn PA, Kuitwaard K, Walgaard C, Van Koningsveld R, Ruts L, Jacobs BC. IVIG treatment and prognosis in Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Clin Immunol. 2010;30;(1).

El-Bayoumi MA, El-Refaey AM, Abdelkader AM, El-Assmy MMA, Alwakeel AA, El-Tahan HM. Comparison of intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange in treatment of mechanically ventilated children with Guillain Barré syndrome: a randomized study. Crit Care 2011;15(4).

Querol L, Lleixà C. Novel Immunological and Therapeutic Insights in Guillain-Barré Syndrome and CIDP. Neurotherapeutics. 2021;18(4):2222.

Lin J, Gao Q, Xiao K, Tian D, Hu W, Han Z et al. Efficacy of therapies in the treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome: A network meta-analysis. Medicine 2021;100(41):E27351.

Hiraga A, Mori M, Ogawara K, Hattori T, Kuwabara S. Differences in patterns of progression in demyelinating and axonal Guillain-Barré syndromes. Neurology. 2003;61(4):47-4.