Current treatment practice of Guillain-Barré syndrome

Objective: To define the current treatment practice of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Methods: The study was based on prospective observational data from the first 1,300 patients included in the International GBS Outcome Study. We described the treatment practice of GBS in general, and for (1) severe forms (unable to walk independently), (2) no recovery after initial treatment, (3) treatment-related fluctuations, (4) mild forms (able to walk independently), and (5) variant forms including Miller Fisher syndrome, taking patient characteristics and hospital type into account. Results: We excluded 88 (7%) patients because of missing data, protocol violation, or alternative diagnosis. Patients from Bangladesh (n = 189, 15%) were described separately because 83% were not treated. IV immunoglobulin (IVIg), plasma exchange (PE), or other immunotherapy was provided in 941 (92%) of the remaining 1,023 patients, including patients with severe GBS (724/743, 97%), mild GBS (126/168, 75%), Miller Fisher syndrome (53/70, 76%), and other variants (33/40, 83%). Of 235 (32%) patients who did not improve after their initial treatment, 82 (35%) received a second immune modulatory treatment. A treatment-related fluctuation was observed in 53 (5%) of 1,023 patients, of whom 36 (68%) were re-treated with IVIg or PE. Conclusions: In current practice, patients with mild and variant forms of GBS, or with treatment-related fluctuations and treatment failures, are frequently treated, even in absence of trial data to support this choice. The variability in treatment practice can be explained in part by the lack of evidence and guidelines for effective treatment in these situations

Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis. The non-randomised ISID study

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 α early' second IVIg course (1-2 weeks after start of the first IVIg course) and 18 patients a α 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