Literature DB >> 31586949

Original research: Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis: the non-randomised ISID study.

Christine Verboon1, Bianca van den Berg1, David R Cornblath2, Esmee Venema1,3, Kenneth C Gorson4, Michael P Lunn5, Hester Lingsma3, Peter Van den Bergh6, Thomas Harbo7, Kathleen Bateman8, Yann Pereon9, Søren H Sindrup10, Susumu Kusunoki11, James Miller12, Zhahirul Islam13, Hans-Peter Hartung14, Govindsinh Chavada15, Bart C Jacobs1,16, Richard A C Hughes17, Pieter A van Doorn18.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare disease course in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) with a poor prognosis who were treated with one or with two intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) courses.
METHODS: From the International GBS Outcome Study, we selected patients whose modified Erasmus GBS Outcome Score at week 1 predicted a poor prognosis. We compared those treated with one IVIg course to those treated with two IVIg courses. The primary endpoint, the GBS disability scale at 4 weeks, was assessed with multivariable ordinal regression.
RESULTS: Of 237 eligible patients, 199 patients received a single IVIg course. Twenty patients received an 'early' second IVIg course (1-2 weeks after start of the first IVIg course) and 18 patients a 'late' second IVIg course (2-4 weeks after start of IVIg). At baseline and 1 week, those receiving two IVIg courses were more disabled than those receiving one course. Compared with the one course group, the adjusted OR for a better GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 0.70 (95%CI 0.16 to 3.04) for the early group and 0.66 (95%CI 0.18 to 2.50) for the late group. The secondary endpoints were not in favour of a second IVIg course.
CONCLUSIONS: This observational study did not show better outcomes after a second IVIg course in GBS with poor prognosis. The study was limited by small numbers and baseline imbalances. Lack of improvement was likely an incentive to start a second IVIg course. A prospective randomised trial is needed to evaluate whether a second IVIg course improves outcome in GBS. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Guillain-Barré syndrome; poor prognosis; second IVIg course; treatment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31586949     DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2019-321496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry        ISSN: 0022-3050            Impact factor:   10.154


  8 in total

1.  Predicting Outcome in Guillain-Barré Syndrome: International Validation of the Modified Erasmus GBS Outcome Score.

Authors:  Alex Y Doets; Hester F Lingsma; Christa Walgaard; Badrul Islam; Nowshin Papri; Amy Davidson; Yuko Yamagishi; Susumu Kusunoki; Mazen M Dimachkie; Waqar Waheed; Noah Kolb; Zhahirul Islam; Quazi Deen Mohammad; Thomas Harbo; Soren H Sindrup; Govindsinh Chavada; Hugh J Willison; Carlos Casasnovas; Kathleen Bateman; James A L Miller; Bianca van den Berg; Christine Verboon; Joyce Roodbol; Sonja E Leonhard; Luana Benedetti; Satoshi Kuwabara; Peter Van den Bergh; Soledad Monges; Girolama A Marfia; Nortina Shahrizaila; Giuliana Galassi; Yann Péréon; Jan Bürmann; Krista Kuitwaard; Ruud P Kleyweg; Cintia Marchesoni; María J Sedano Tous; Luis Querol; Isabel Illa; Yuzhong Wang; Eduardo Nobile-Orazio; Simon Rinaldi; Angelo Schenone; Julio Pardo; Frederique H Vermeij; Helmar C Lehmann; Volkan Granit; Guido Cavaletti; Gerardo Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez; Fabio A Barroso; Leo H Visser; Hans D Katzberg; Efthimios Dardiotis; Shahram Attarian; Anneke J van der Kooi; Filip Eftimov; Paul W Wirtz; Johnny P A Samijn; H Jacobus Gilhuis; Robert D M Hadden; James K L Holt; Kazim A Sheikh; Summer Karafiath; Michal Vytopil; Giovanni Antonini; Thomas E Feasby; Catharina G Faber; Cees J Gijsbers; Mark Busby; Rhys C Roberts; Nicholas J Silvestri; Raffaella Fazio; Gert W van Dijk; Marcel P J Garssen; Chiara S M Straathof; Kenneth C Gorson; Bart C Jacobs
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 2.  Immunoglobulin and Monoclonal Antibody Therapies in Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Authors:  Yusuf A Rajabally
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 6.088

Review 3.  Axonal variants of Guillain-Barré syndrome: an update.

Authors:  Pei Shang; Mingqin Zhu; Ying Wang; Xiangyu Zheng; Xiujuan Wu; Jie Zhu; Jiachun Feng; Hong-Liang Zhang
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 4.  Association between chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and gastrointestinal malignancies.

Authors:  Adnan Malik; Rani Berry; Brian M Fung; James H Tabibian
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-11-04

5.  Bickerstaff's brainstem encephalitis associated with anti-GM1 and anti-GD1a antibodies.

Authors:  Jonathan Cleaver; Richard James; Gurjit Chohan; Paul Lyons
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2020-09-18

Review 6.  Novel Immunological and Therapeutic Insights in Guillain-Barré Syndrome and CIDP.

Authors:  Luis Querol; Cinta Lleixà
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 7.620

Review 7.  Update on Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Neurology: Modulating Neuro-autoimmunity, Evolving Factors on Efficacy and Dosing and Challenges on Stopping Chronic IVIg Therapy.

Authors:  Marinos C Dalakas
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 7.620

8.  Real-world treatment of adult patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome over the last two decades.

Authors:  Jakob Rath; Gudrun Zulehner; Bernadette Schober; Anna Grisold; Martin Krenn; Hakan Cetin; Fritz Zimprich
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.