Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Faustino, P
Publication Date: 2022
Other Authors: Coutinho, M, Brum, M, Medeiros, L, Ladeira, F
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4889
Summary: Introduction: The treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or plasma exchange (PE) reduces time to clinical recovery. Although sometimes used in clinical practice, the benefit of a second treatment cycle is of unproven benefit. Aims: Our aim was to compare GBS prognosis in patients treated with one or two cycles of IVIg or PE. Methods: We selected patients with electrophysiological studies compatible with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy or acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy, from January 2018 to December 2020 in our hospital. Our primary outcome was any improvement in the Guillain-Barré Syndrome Disability Score (GBS-DS) at a mean of twelve weeks. We compared patients treated with one or two treatment cycles with a binary regression. Results: We included twenty-six patients, 65.4% with the classical presentation and 30.8% were treated with two cycles. Patients treated with two cycles presented a higher basal GBS-DS (median 4; IQR 1-5) compared with the group of patients treated with one cycle (median 3; IQR 1-5), p = 0.01. The remaining basal characteristics were similar between groups. The two-cycle treatment regimen did not associate with an improvement in GBS-DS (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03-2.35, p = 0.24). Likewise there was no benefit in the need for intensive care unit (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.37-10.92, p = 0.42) or mechanical invasive ventilation (OR 10.2, 95% CI 0.86-120.96, p = 0.66). Discussion: Our analysis reinforces the recent literature data regarding the absence of benefit of two treatment cycles in patients with GBS.
id RCAP_5847e6993aba0a2827f0fe8d596442e4
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/4889
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational StudyHSJ NEUGuillain-Barre Syndrome* / drug therapyImmunoglobulins, Intravenous* / therapeutic usePlasma ExchangePlasmapheresisPrognosisIntroduction: The treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or plasma exchange (PE) reduces time to clinical recovery. Although sometimes used in clinical practice, the benefit of a second treatment cycle is of unproven benefit. Aims: Our aim was to compare GBS prognosis in patients treated with one or two cycles of IVIg or PE. Methods: We selected patients with electrophysiological studies compatible with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy or acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy, from January 2018 to December 2020 in our hospital. Our primary outcome was any improvement in the Guillain-Barré Syndrome Disability Score (GBS-DS) at a mean of twelve weeks. We compared patients treated with one or two treatment cycles with a binary regression. Results: We included twenty-six patients, 65.4% with the classical presentation and 30.8% were treated with two cycles. Patients treated with two cycles presented a higher basal GBS-DS (median 4; IQR 1-5) compared with the group of patients treated with one cycle (median 3; IQR 1-5), p = 0.01. The remaining basal characteristics were similar between groups. The two-cycle treatment regimen did not associate with an improvement in GBS-DS (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03-2.35, p = 0.24). Likewise there was no benefit in the need for intensive care unit (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.37-10.92, p = 0.42) or mechanical invasive ventilation (OR 10.2, 95% CI 0.86-120.96, p = 0.66). Discussion: Our analysis reinforces the recent literature data regarding the absence of benefit of two treatment cycles in patients with GBS.ElsevierRepositório da Unidade Local de Saúde São JoséFaustino, PCoutinho, MBrum, MMedeiros, LLadeira, F2024-05-03T14:43:07Z2022-102022-10-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4889eng10.1016/j.jns.2022.120368info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-03-06T16:49:41Zoai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/4889Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-29T00:20:28.409541Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
title Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
spellingShingle Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
Faustino, P
HSJ NEU
Guillain-Barre Syndrome* / drug therapy
Immunoglobulins, Intravenous* / therapeutic use
Plasma Exchange
Plasmapheresis
Prognosis
title_short Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
title_full Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
title_fullStr Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
title_sort Outcomes in Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following a Second Therapeutic Cycle – A Single-Centre Retrospective Observational Study
author Faustino, P
author_facet Faustino, P
Coutinho, M
Brum, M
Medeiros, L
Ladeira, F
author_role author
author2 Coutinho, M
Brum, M
Medeiros, L
Ladeira, F
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório da Unidade Local de Saúde São José
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Faustino, P
Coutinho, M
Brum, M
Medeiros, L
Ladeira, F
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv HSJ NEU
Guillain-Barre Syndrome* / drug therapy
Immunoglobulins, Intravenous* / therapeutic use
Plasma Exchange
Plasmapheresis
Prognosis
topic HSJ NEU
Guillain-Barre Syndrome* / drug therapy
Immunoglobulins, Intravenous* / therapeutic use
Plasma Exchange
Plasmapheresis
Prognosis
description Introduction: The treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or plasma exchange (PE) reduces time to clinical recovery. Although sometimes used in clinical practice, the benefit of a second treatment cycle is of unproven benefit. Aims: Our aim was to compare GBS prognosis in patients treated with one or two cycles of IVIg or PE. Methods: We selected patients with electrophysiological studies compatible with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy or acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy, from January 2018 to December 2020 in our hospital. Our primary outcome was any improvement in the Guillain-Barré Syndrome Disability Score (GBS-DS) at a mean of twelve weeks. We compared patients treated with one or two treatment cycles with a binary regression. Results: We included twenty-six patients, 65.4% with the classical presentation and 30.8% were treated with two cycles. Patients treated with two cycles presented a higher basal GBS-DS (median 4; IQR 1-5) compared with the group of patients treated with one cycle (median 3; IQR 1-5), p = 0.01. The remaining basal characteristics were similar between groups. The two-cycle treatment regimen did not associate with an improvement in GBS-DS (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03-2.35, p = 0.24). Likewise there was no benefit in the need for intensive care unit (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.37-10.92, p = 0.42) or mechanical invasive ventilation (OR 10.2, 95% CI 0.86-120.96, p = 0.66). Discussion: Our analysis reinforces the recent literature data regarding the absence of benefit of two treatment cycles in patients with GBS.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-10
2022-10-01T00:00:00Z
2024-05-03T14:43:07Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4889
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4889
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.jns.2022.120368
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833600495234580480