Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain Barré syndrome

A Case Report of Guillain-Barre Syndrome in an Eleven-Month Infant

Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is an acute immune-mediated progressive predominantly motor symmetric polyradiculoneuropathy which causes demyelination and leads to weakness, ataxia and areflexia. There are a variety of forms of the syndrome; and despite being the most common cause of acute flaccid paralysis in children, it has a low incidence under 18 years old, and it is even rarer in children less than 2 years of age. Very few cases have been reported under 12 months of age. We describe a case of an 11-month-old male infant presenting with weakness and inability to ambulate who was diagnosed with GBS.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions and the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings. Both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and confounding-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria were collected. We included studies investigating the effect of pharmacological management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 management. Mild patients who do not require hospitalization or have self-limiting disease courses were not eligible for our NMA. A total of 110 studies (40 RCTs and 70 observational studies) were included. PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the beginning of 2020 to August 24, 2020. Studies from Asia (41 countries, 37.2%), Europe (28 countries, 25.4%), North America (24 countries, 21.8%), South America (5 countries, 4.5%), and Middle East (6 countries, 5.4%), and additional 6 multinational studies (5.4%) were included in our analyses. The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and/or mechanical ventilation), viral clearance rate, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and noncardiac serious adverse events. Based on RCTs, the risk of progression to severe course and mortality was significantly reduced with corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.86, p = 0.032, and OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91, p = 0.002, respectively) and remdesivir (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p < 0.001, and OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98, p = 0.041, respectively) compared to standard care for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU; corticosteroids were also shown to reduce mortality rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, p < 0.001) for critically ill patients in ICU. In analyses including observational studies, interferon-alpha (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.39, p = 0.004), itolizumab (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92, p = 0.042), sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.88, p = 0.030), anakinra (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p = 0.019), tocilizumab (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60, p < 0.001), and convalescent plasma (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, p = 0.038) were associated with reduced mortality rate in non-ICU setting, while high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.003), ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. Convalescent plasma was the only treatment option that was associated with improved viral clearance rate at 2 weeks compared to standard care (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, p < 0.001). The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.20, p = 0.003) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.00, p = 0.007). No drug was significantly associated with increased noncardiac serious adverse events compared to standard care. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes were estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The major limitation of the present study is the overall low level of evidence that reduces the certainty of recommendations. Besides, the risk of bias (RoB) measured by RoB2 and ROBINS-I framework for individual studies was generally low to moderate. The outcomes deducted from observational studies could not infer causality and can only imply associations. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020186527).

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, we found that anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir were associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide clinical benefits while posing cardiac safety risks when combined with azithromycin, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 29% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is supported by moderate or high certainty and can be translated to practice and policy; the remaining 71% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013, and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 28 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We found six trials of five different interventions eligible for inclusion in this review. The trials were conducted in hospitals in Canada, China, Germany, Japan and the UK, and included 151 participants in total. All trials randomised participants aged 16 years and older (mean or median age in the trials ranged from 36 to 57 years in the intervention groups and 34 to 60 years in the control groups) with severe GBS, defined by the inability to walk unaided. One trial also randomised patients with mild GBS who were still able to walk unaided. We identified two new trials at this update.The primary outcome measure for this review was improvement in disability grade four weeks after randomisation. Four of six trials had a high risk of bias in at least one respect. We assessed all evidence for the outcome mean improvement in disability grade as very low certainty, which means that we were unable to draw any conclusions from the data. One RCT with 19 participants compared interferon beta-1a (IFNb-1a) and placebo. It is uncertain whether IFNb-1a improves disability after four weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.1; 95% CI -1.58 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 10 participants compared brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BNDF) and placebo. It is uncertain whether BDNF improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 37 participants compared cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) filtration and plasma exchange. It is uncertain whether CSF filtration improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.62 to 0.66; very low-certainty evidence). One trial that compared the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside with corticosteroids with 43 participants did not report the risk ratio (RR) for an improvement by one or more disability grade after four weeks, but did report improvement after eight weeks. It is uncertain whether tripterygium polyglycoside improves disability after eight weeks (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). We performed a meta-analysis of two trials comparing eculizumab and placebo with 41 participants. It is uncertain whether eculizumab improves disability after four weeks (MD -0.23; 95% CI -1.79 to 1.34; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were uncommon in each of the trials and evidence was graded as either low or very low. It is uncertain whether serious adverse events were more common with IFNb-1a versus placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.72; 19 participants), BNDF versus placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.54; 10 participants) or CSF filtration versus plasma exchange (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.25; 37 participants). The trial of tripterygium polyglycoside did not report serious adverse events. There may be no clear difference in the number of serious adverse events after eculizumab compared to placebo (RR 1.90, 0.34 to 10.50; 41 participants). We found no clinically important differences in any of the outcome measures selected for this review in any of the six trials. However, sample sizes were small and therefore clinically important benefit or harm cannot be excluded.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All six RCTs were too small to exclude clinically important benefit or harm from the assessed interventions. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all interventions and outcomes.

Integrative metabolomics reveals unique metabolic traits in Guillain-Barré Syndrome and its variants

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute fatal progressive disease caused by autoimmune mechanism mainly affecting peripheral nervous system. Although the syndrome is clinically sub-classified into several variants, specific biomarker and exact pathomechanism of each subtypes are not well elucidated yet. In current study, integrative metabolomic and lipidomic profiles were acquisitioned from cerebrospinal fluid samples of 86 GBS from three variants and 20 disease controls. And the data were systematically compared to our previous result on inflammatory demyelination disorders of central nervous system (IDDs) and healthy controls. Primary metabolite profiles revealed unique metabolic traits in which 9 and 7 compounds were specifically changed in GBS and IDD, respectively. Next, the biomarker panel with 10 primary metabolites showed a fairly good discrimination power among 3 GBS subtypes, healthy controls, and disease controls (AUCs ranged 0.849-0.999). The robustness of the biomarker panel was vigorously validated by multi-step statistical evaluation. Subsequent lipidomics revealed GBS variant-specific alteration where the significant elevations of lyso-phosphatidylcholines and sphingomyelins were unique to AIDP (acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy) and AMAN (acute motor axonal neuropathy), respectively. And metabolome-wide multivariate correlation analysis identified potential clinical association between GBS disability scale (Hughes score) and CSF lipids (monoacylglycerols, and sphingomyelins). Finally, Bayesian network analysis of covarianced structures of primary metabolites and lipids proposed metabolic hub and potential biochemical linkage associated with the pathology.

Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 January 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment, or comparing different regimens or techniques of plasma exchange.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In the first version of this review there were six eligible trials concerning 649 participants comparing plasma exchange with supportive treatment. No new eligible trials have been identified in subsequent updates. Two other studies compared different numbers of plasma exchanges. Overall the included trials had a moderate risk of bias (in general, the studies were at low risk but all had a high risk of bias from lack of blinding).In one trial with 220 severely affected participants, the median time to recover walking with aid was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (30 days) than without plasma exchange (44 days). In another trial with 91 mildly affected participants, the median time to onset of motor recovery was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (six days) than without plasma exchange (10 days). After four weeks, moderate-quality evidence from the combined data of three trials accounting for a total of 349 patients showed that plasma exchange significantly increased the proportion of patients who recovered the ability to walk with assistance (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.15).In five trials with 623 participants in total, moderate-quality evidence showed that the RR for improvement by one or more disability grades after four weeks was 1.64 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.96) times greater with plasma exchange. Participants treated with plasma exchange also fared better, according to moderate-quality evidence, in time to recover walking without aid (three trials with 349 participants; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.79) and requirement for artificial ventilation (five trials with 623 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). More participants had relapses by the end of follow-up in the plasma exchange group than in the control group (six trials with 649 participants; RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.93; moderate-quality evidence). Despite this, according to moderate-quality evidence, the likelihood of full muscle strength recovery at one year was greater with plasma exchange than without plasma exchange (five trials with 404 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45), and the likelihood of severe motor sequelae was less (six trials with 649 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96). High-quality evidence from six trials with 649 participants could not confirm or refute a lower risk of death following plasma exchange compared to control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.65).Three trials (N = 556) provided details of serious adverse events during the hospital stay; combined analyses found no increase in serious infectious events compared to the control group (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.13), nor were there clear differences in blood pressure instability, cardiac arrhythmias or pulmonary emboli.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows significantly more improvement with plasma exchange than with supportive care alone in adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome, without a significant increase in serious adverse events. According to moderate-quality evidence, there was a small but significant increase in the risk of relapse during the first six to 12 months after onset in people treated with plasma exchange compared with those who were not treated. Despite this, after one year, full recovery of muscle strength was more likely and severe residual weakness less likely with plasma exchange.

Outcome of Guillain - Barré Syndrome in Children: A prospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital in Upper Egypt

INTRODUCTION

Guillain-Barré syndrome is the most common cause of acute flaccid paralysis in children, and defined as an acute inflammatory polyneuropathy. The objective of this study was to assess the clinico-laboratory profile, and outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome in children at Sohag University Hospital.

METHODS

This prospective cohort observational study was conducted in 2014-2015. The included children were subjected to through medical history and detailed systemic and neurological examination. Nerve conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid analysis were done for all patients. Follow up was done at three and six months both clinically and by nerve conduction studies.

RESULTS

This study included 50 patients (27 males/23 females) with median age of 2.92 years. Upper respiratory tract infections were the most common antecedent infections (50%) and the neurological findings were weakness of both lower limbs and pain in all patients (100%) followed by sphincteric dysfunction (26%) while cranial neuropathies were found in 4%. Nerve conduction study revealed that acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy was found in 52% of cases, acute motor axonal neuropathy in 36% of cases, whereas acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy was found in 6% of cases. The outcome was good in about 78% of cases, Hughes motor scale revealed that 58% were healthy, 18% had minor signs or symptoms, 12% walked without support, 6% walked with support, and 6% were bed ridden.

CONCLUSION

The outcome was favorable, although a minority of patients suffered neurological deficit. Immediate administration of intravenous immunoglobulin reduced mortality and disability.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment. We also identified a number of non-randomised studies during the search, the results of which we considered in the Discussion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new trials during this update of the review. In previous versions of this review we identified only very low quality evidence for four different interventions published in four studies. Each study had a high risk of bias in at least one respect. One RCT with 19 participants comparing interferon beta-1a and placebo showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. Another with 10 participants comparing brain-derived neurotrophic factor and placebo showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. A third with 37 participants comparing cerebrospinal fluid filtration and plasma exchange also showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. In a fourth with 43 participants, the risk ratio for an improvement by one or more disability grade after eight weeks was greater with the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside than with corticosteroids (risk ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.11); other outcomes in this trial showed no difference. Serious adverse events were uncommon with each of these treatments and in the control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was very low. Three small RCTs, comparing interferon beta-1a or brain-derived neurotrophic factor with placebo, and cerebrospinal fluid filtration with plasma exchange, showed no significant benefit or harm for any of the interventions. A fourth small trial showed that the Chinese herbal medicine, tripterygium polyglycoside, hastened recovery in people with GBS to a greater extent than corticosteroids, but this result needs confirmation. We were unable to draw any useful conclusions from the few observational studies we identified.

Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges

INTRODUCTION

Reports of high rates of primary microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia and Brazil have raised concerns that the virus circulating in these regions is a rapidly developing neuropathic, teratogenic, emerging infectious public health threat. There are no licensed medical countermeasures (vaccines, therapies or preventive drugs) available for Zika virus infection and disease. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) predicts that Zika virus will continue to spread and eventually reach all countries and territories in the Americas with endemic Aedes mosquitoes. This paper reviews the status of the Zika virus outbreak, including medical countermeasure options, with a focus on how the epidemiology, insect vectors, neuropathology, virology and immunology inform options and strategies available for medical countermeasure development and deployment.

METHODS

Multiple information sources were employed to support the review. These included publically available literature, patents, official communications, English and Lusophone lay press. Online surveys were distributed to physicians in the US, Mexico and Argentina and responses analyzed. Computational epitope analysis as well as infectious disease outbreak modeling and forecasting were implemented. Field observations in Brazil were compiled and interviews conducted with public health officials.

New strategies in the management of Guillain-Barré syndrome

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute and usually monophasic, neurological, demyelinating disease. Although most patients have good outcomes without sequelae after conventional plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, 20% of patients continue to have severe disease and 5% die of their disease. Therefore, there is an obvious need for more acceptable and efficacious therapies. Experimental autoimmune neuritis (EAN) is the classical animal model for GBS. As there is no specific drug for GBS, several drugs targeting the humoral and cellular components of the immune response have been used to treat EAN in the endeavour to find new treatment alternatives for GBS. This review focused on some new strategies for GBS, which have been reported but have not yet been widely used, and on the main drugs which have been investigated in EAN.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and this update in 2013. 

OBJECTIVES

To review systematically the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

On 28 August 2012, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register CENTRAL (2012, Issue 8 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2012) and EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2012) for treatments for GBS. We considered evidence from non-randomised studies in the Discussion.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised or quasi-RCTs of acute (within four weeks from onset) GBS of all types, ages and degrees of severity. We discarded trials which only tested corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo treatment or another treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Change in disability after four weeks was the primary outcome. Two authors checked references and extracted data independently. One author entered and another checked data in Review Manager (RevMan). We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated mean differences and risk ratios with their 95% confidence intervals. We assessed strength of evidence with GradePro software.

MAIN RESULTS

Only very low quality evidence was found for four different interventions. This update of the review found no new trials. One RCT with 13 participants showed no significant difference in any outcome between interferon beta-1a and placebo. Another with 10 participants showed no significant difference in any outcome between brain-derived neurotrophic factor and placebo. A third with 37 participants showed no significant difference in any outcome between cerebrospinal fluid filtration and plasma exchange. In a fourth with 20 participants, the risk ratio of improving by one or more disability grades after eight weeks was significantly greater with the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside than with corticosteroids (risk ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.11). Serious adverse events were uncommon with each of these treatments and not significantly commoner in the treated than the control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was very low. Three small RCTs, of interferon beta-1a, brain-derived neurotrophic factor and cerebrospinal fluid filtration, showed no significant benefit or harm. A fourth small trial showed that the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside hastened recovery significantly more than corticosteroids but this result needs confirmation. It was not possible to draw useful conclusions from the few observational studies.

[2011: What's new in dysimmune neuropathies]

There are strong research activities in the field of dysimmune neuropathies. In Guillain-Barré syndrome, new pathophysiological mechanisms have been demonstrated with the potential development of new therapies, a clinical prediction model is applicable early in the course of disease, and under investigation are new treatment strategies with adapted intravenous Ig dosages. In chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies, current diagnostic tests are discussed but biomarkers are needed, such as histological changes or differential gene expression in nerve or skin biopsies. The exploration of novel therapeutic approaches including monoclonal antibodies and oral immunosuppressants, known from multiple sclerosis studies, suggests new approaches to treatment. Changes of the peripheral nerves on MR imaging are better known and the usefulness of serum antibodies is reviewed.

Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating Guillain-Barré syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (14 June 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2011) and EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors agreed the selection of eligible studies and independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Likewise data for adverse events were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author.

MAIN RESULTS

In the first version of this review there were six eligible trials concerning 649 participants comparing plasma exchange with supportive treatment. No new eligible trials have been identified in subsequent updates. Overall the included trials had a low risk of bias.Primary outcomes In one trial with 220 severely affected participants, the median time to recover walking with aid was significantly faster; with plasma exchange (30 days) than without (44 days). In another trial with 91 mildly affected participants, the median time to onset of motor recovery was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (six days) than without (10 days). After four weeks, combined data from three trials accounting for a total of 349 patients showed that plasma exchanged significantly increased the proportion of patients who recovered the ability to walk with assistance (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.15).Secondary outcomes In five trials with 623 participants in total, the RR of being improved by one or more grades after four weeks was 1.64 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.96) in favour of plasma exchange. Participants treated with plasma exchange also fared significantly better in time to recover walking without aid (three trials with 349 participants, RR 1.72 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.79)) and requirement for artificial ventilation (five trials with 623 participants, RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.74)). There were significantly more participants with relapses by the end of follow-up in the plasma exchange than the control group (6 trials with 649 participants, RR 2.89 (95% CI 1.05 to 7.93)). Despite this, at one year the likelihood of full muscle strength recovery was significantly greater with plasma exchange than without (five trials with 404 participants, RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.45)) and the likelihood of severe motor sequelae was significantly less (six trials with 649 patients, RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.96)). There was no significant difference in deaths (six trials with 649 participants, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.65)) or participants with adverse events (three trials with 556 participants), except fewer arrhythmias in plasma exchange treated participants (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.00)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows significantly more improvement with plasma exchange than supportive care alone in adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome without a significant increase in serious adverse events. There was a small but significant increase in the risk of relapse during the first six to 12 months after onset in people treated with plasma exchange compared with those that were not treated. Despite this, after one year, full recovery was significantly more likely and severe residual weakness less likely with plasma exchange.

Targeting NOX enzymes in the central nervous system: therapeutic opportunities

Among the pathogenic mechanisms underlying central nervous system (CNS) diseases, oxidative stress is almost invariably described. For this reason, numerous attempts have been made to decrease reactive oxygen species (ROS) with the administration of antioxidants as potential therapies for CNS disorders. However, such treatments have always failed in clinical trials. Targeting specific sources of reactive oxygen species in the CNS (e.g. NOX enzymes) represents an alternative promising option. Indeed, NOX enzymes are major generators of ROS, which regulate progression of CNS disorders as diverse as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, and stroke. On the other hand, in autoimmune demyelinating diseases, ROS generated by NOX enzymes are protective, presumably by dampening the specific immune response. In this review, we discuss the possibility of developing therapeutics targeting NADPH oxidase (NOX) enzymes for the treatment of different CNS pathologies. Specific compounds able to modulate the activation of NOX enzymes, and the consequent production of ROS, could fill the need for disease-modifying drugs for many incurable CNS pathologies.