Q J Med 2002; 95: 717-721
© 2002 Association of Physicians
Review |
Treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome
From the Department of Neurology, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction Supportive managementActive treatment of GBSConclusionReferences |
|---|
Although there are earlier clinical descriptions of rapidly progressive weakness that may well have been cases of acute inflammatory neuropathy, Guillain, Barré and Strohl in 19161 were the first to demonstrate the peripheral nature of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) by careful recording and interpretation of the tendon reflexes, and thus justified their inclusion in its name. Guillain and his colleagues treated their two patients with bed rest and injections of strychnine, a common treatment at the time. With better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease and the benefit of controlled trials of a variety of treatments we now have a much firmer evidence base for therapy. This review attempts to summarize and analyse this evidence base.
GBS is an acute neuropathy. Diagnostic criteria were defined for research purposes back in 19812 and have been subsequently refined.3 Essentially, diagnosis requires progressive weakness of more than one limb, over a period of <4 weeks, thought to be due to a neuropathy, in the absence of any identifiable genetic, metabolic or toxic cause. By this definition, GBS is a clinical syndrome that includes a number of pathological and electrophysiological subtypes (Table 1
).
|
The most common and least well understood entity is acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) that probably constitutes about 75% of the syndrome. Careful neurophysiological assessment will usually show a demyelinating neuropathy. Although not usually required for diagnosis, histological study of nerve at biopsy or post mortem material reveals perivascular infiltrates and demyelination.4 Although motor findings are by far the most prevalent, the disorder does involve sensory nerves.
Acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) is an axonal, entirely motor disorder which is commonly associated with antibodies against gangliosides, especially GM1.5 A further type of GBS is the rarer Acute Motor and Axonal Neuropathy (AMSAN), in which neurophysiology and histological findings indicate an acute axonal disorder with involvement of both motor and sensory nerves.6 A related condition, usually considered to be variant of GBS, is the Miller Fisher syndrome, which was originally coined to describe a condition in which there was ophthalmoplegia, ataxia and areflexia, but no weakness.7 This disorder is very tightly associated with antibodies to the ganglioside GQ1b, which appears to act in part on the neuromuscular junction to interfere with transmitter release.8
The pathogenesis of GBS is only poorly understood. It seems likely that an antibody-mediated mechanism is largely responsible for AMAN and Miller Fisher syndrome, while cellular mechanisms may be more important in AIDP, although antibodies are probably involved in the mechanism of demyelination.
Treatment of GBS can be subdivided into techniques for managing the severely paralysed patient requiring intensive care and respiratory support, and the specific therapy aimed at ameliorating or reversing the nerve damage.
|
Supportive management |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionSupportive managementActive treatment of GBSConclusionReferences |
|---|
The advent of respiratory assistance, together with improved intensive care, has improved the outcome of GBS dramatically. While none of these techniques have (or could have been) subjected to controlled trials, the prognosis for GBS has improved such that mortality even in the most severe patients has fallen from 30% to 5%. This is largely due to positive pressure ventilation, but complications of prolonged paralysis can also now be anticipated and appropriate prophylaxis instigated. Thus prophylaxis of venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli with low-molecular-weight heparin has become routine. Respiratory infections can be reduced by minimal sedation in the ITU, frequent physiotherapy and where appropriate, ventilation with end expiratory pressure to reduce atelectasis and so-called ‘elephant lung’. Cardiac rhythm disturbances were a common cause of death in patients with GBS, and this can be reduced by careful ECG monitoring with prophylactic temporary pacing in cases of significant bradycardia, which may herald intractible cardiac asystole. Pain can be adequately controlled with analgesia, and helped greatly by frequent passive limb movements.
|
Active treatment of GBS |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionSupportive managementActive treatment of GBSConclusionReferences |
|---|
In view of the evidence of immune dysregulation in GBS, treatment with steroids, plasma exchange, and intravenous immunoglobulin have all been tried and reported in the neurological literature. These reports have all initially appeared as anecdotal accounts followed by retrospective series from individual centres. Such data are always difficult to interpret, and a number of randomized controlled trials followed. Such trials have not usually been placebo-controlled because of ethical constraints with sham plasma exchange, but randomization and blinding of the assessors have considerably improved the value of this evidence in making treatment decisions.
Controlled clinical trials have now been carried to assess the value of steroids, plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and combinations of these treatments. The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group have produced systematic reviews of the evidence supporting the use of each of these treatments.9–11
Steroids
Six eligible trials have addressed the value of steroids in treating acute GBS.12,13 These involved 195 patients and 187 controls. A six-point scale provides the functional endpoint of these trials (Table 2). One large multicentre trial carries most weight in these analyses. Neither mean disability at 4 weeks, (Figure 1) the proportion of patients who were improved by one grade at 4 weeks, nor the improvement in grade at 12 months were altered by steroids, which appear to be safe but ineffective. This contrasts with the treatment of patients with more chronic demyelinating neuropathies, which respond well to steroids. This lack of response to steroids is not easily explained, and it may be that any benefit that steroids have in reducing inflammation is outweighed by some other untoward effect on repair processes. A single pilot study addressing combined treatment with methyl prednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin was not included in the Cochrane analysis because it was not randomized, but suggested a possible advantage. A randomized study has recently been presented but not yet published14 that just fails to find an significant advantage to the combination. Post hoc manipulation of the data for known risk factors does suggest an advantage to combination therapy, but such analyses are known to be rather unreliable and can be misleading.
|
|
Plasma exchange
The value of plasma exchange has been addressed in six randomized studies, again reviewed by the Cochrane collaboration.15–20 Overall, 649 patients received plasma exchange, and these were compared with supportive treatment alone, since PE was the first treatment shown to be effective in GBS (Figure 2). The time to recover to walking with aid was significantly shortened in the PE group in two trials (30 vs. 44 days, p<0.01). The number of patients that improved one or more grades was available in five trials and gave a relative risk of 1.7 (95%CI 1.42–2.03, p<0.00001) in favour of plasma exchange. Similarly there was significant improvements in time to recover walking without aid, percentage of patients requiring artificial ventilation, duration of ventilation, and severe sequelae at one year. The Cochrane review points out that PE is the only treatment for GBS found to be superior to supportive treatment, and therefore should be the standard against which new treatments such as intravenous immunoglobulin should be judged.19,20
|
Two trials have compared the number of different exchanges required for a beneficial effect. Some 304 patients unable to stand unaided were randomized to either four or two exchanges. The median time to recover walking with assistance was significantly shortened in the group receiving four exchanges compared to two exchanges (24 vs. 20 days, p=0.04). Significant shortening was also seen in this group in the median time on the ventilator and the median time to hospital discharge. At 12 months, there was also a higher proportion of patients that had recovered full muscle strength among those treated with four exchanges. This benefit of four rather two exchanges was accompanied by a slightly increased incidence of blood pressure instability and haematomas, although these were not considered sufficiently severe to outweigh the advantage of the extra exchanges. In a second trial the same authors examined six versus four exchanges in patients whose disease was severe enough to require mechanical ventilation at entry. No difference in efficacy was observed between these two groups, but adverse events were more frequent in the six-exchange group, with significantly greater blood pressure instability in this group (46% vs. 26%, p=0.001) and slightly more deaths in this group at one year (4/80, 5% vs. 2/81, 2%; p=0.44. From this data it appears that four exchanges are better than two for moderate disease, and two sessions suffice for patients with only mild disease.
PE has also been compared to CSF fluid filtration in a single randomized trial.21 In this trial, 20 patients were assigned to PE (five or six sessions) and compared with 17 patients treated with CSF filtration. The CSF filtration consisted of five or six cycles of 30 to 50 ml of CSF filtered and reinstilled daily for 15 days. Median improvement of clinical grades was not significantly different at four weeks, nor was there any significant advantage to CSF filtration. This trial was quite small, so clear conclusions on the value of CSF filtration cannot be made, but as yet there seems no good evidence to use this treatment.
Intravenous immunoglobulin
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) was introduced for the treatment of auto-immune thrombocytopaenia22 and tried for the treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.23 A favourable response in patients with GBS was reported in 198824 and led to the first randomized controlled trial. A meta analysis of IVIg for GBS found three randomized trials that compared IVIg with PE25,26 and the only trial comparing IvIg with supportive treatment was considered inadequate to establish its value.27
IVIg appeared beneficial in all three randomized controlled trials (Figure 3). Two of these trials could be combined in a meta-analysis to give 398 patients, and the value of IVIg assessed on the basis of a change in disability scale employed in previous studies. There was no significant difference between IVIg and PE in change of disability grade, nor in time to walk unaided, mortality, or proportion of patients unable to walk at one year.
|
|
Conclusion |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionSupportive managementActive treatment of GBSConclusionReferences |
|---|
Good quality intensive care remains the most important aspect of the management of the severe case of GBS. Clinical trials indicate that plasma exchange is more effective than supportive treatment alone in reducing the median time taken for patients to recover. Intravenous immunoglobulin appears as effective as plasma exchange and may have fewer side-effects. Corticosteroids alone do not alter the outcome of GBS, and there is insufficient evidence that their use in combination with immunoglobulin is effective. Other treatments such as CSF filtration remain experimental and unproven.
|
Notes |
|---|
Address correspondence to Dr J.B. Winer, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TH. e-mail: j.b.winer{at}bham.ac.uk
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionSupportive managementActive treatment of GBSConclusionReferences |
|---|
1. Guillain G, Barré JA, Strohl A. Sur un syndrome de radiculo-nevrite avec hyperalbuminose du liquide cephalorachidien sans reaction cellulaire: remarques sur les characteres clinique et graphique des reflexes tendinaux. Bull Soc Med Hop1916; 40:1462–70.
2. Asbury AK, Arnason BG, Karp HR, McFarlin DE. Criteria for the diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Ann Neurol1978; 3:565–6.[Medline]
3. Asbury AK, Cornblath DR. Assessment of current diagnostic criteria for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Ann Neurol1990; 27:S21–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
4. Asbury AK, Arnason BG, Adams RD. The inflammatory lesion in idiopathic polyneuritis: its role in pathogenesis. Medicine1969; 48:173–215.[Medline]
5. Ho TW, Mishu B, Li CY, et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China: relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain1995; 118:597–605.
6. Hughes R, Hadden R, Gregson N, Smith K. Pathogenesis of Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Neuroimmunol1999; 100:74–97.[Web of Science][Medline]
7. Fisher C. An unusual variant of acute idiopathic polyneuritis (syndrome of ophthalmoplegia, ataxia and areflexia). N Engl J Med1956; 225:57–75.
8. Chiba A, Kusunoki S, Obata H, Machinami R, Kanazawa I. Serum anti-GQ1b IgG antibody is associated with ophthalmoplegia in Miller Fisher syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome: clinical and immunohistochemical studies. Neurology1993; 43:1911–17.
9. Hughes RAC, van der Meché FGA. Corticosteroid Treatment for Guillain-Barré Syndrome (Cochrane Review). Oxford, Update Software, 1999.
10. Hughes RAC, Raphael JC, Swan AV, van Doorn PA. Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Guillain-Barré Syndrome (Cochrane Review). Oxford, Update Software, 2002.
11. Raphael JC, Chevret S, Hughes RAC. Plasma Exchange for Guillain-Barré Syndrome (Cochrane Review). Oxford, Update Software, 2001.
12. Anonymous. Double-blind trial of intravenous methylprednisolone in Guillain-Barré syndrome: Guillain-Barré Syndrome Steroid Trial Group. Lancet1993; 341:586–90.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Swick HM, McQuillen MP. The use of steroids in the treatment of idiopathic polyneuritis. Neurology1976; 26:205–12.
14. Van Koningsveld R, van der Meché FGA, Schmitz PI, Van Doorn PA. Combined therapy of intravenous immunoglobulin and methylprednisolone in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome: the results of a multicentre double blind placebo controlled clinical trial. Peripher Nerv Syst2001; 6:186–7.
15. Farkkila M, Kinnunen E, Haapanen E, Iivanainen M. Guillain-Barré syndrome: quantitative measurement of plasma exchange therapy. Neurology1987; 37:837–40.
16. Greenwood RJ, Newsom-Davis J, Hughes RA, et al. Controlled trial of plasma exchange in acute inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathy. Lancet1984; 1:877–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
17. Anonymous. Plasmapheresis and acute Guillain-Barré syndrome: the Guillain-Barré syndrome Study Group. Neurology1985; 35:1096–104.
18. Osterman PO, Fagius J, Lundemo G, et al. Beneficial effects of plasma exchange in acute inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathy. Lancet1984; 2:1296–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. Anonymous. Efficiency of plasma exchange in Guillain-Barré syndrome: role of replacement fluids. French Cooperative Group on Plasma Exchange in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Ann Neurol1987; 22:753–61.[Web of Science][Medline]
20. Anonymous. Appropriate number of plasma exchanges in Guillain-Barré syndrome: French Cooperative Group on Plasma Exchange in Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Ann Neurol1997; 41:298–306.[Web of Science][Medline]
21. Wollinsky K, Hulser P, Brinkmeier H, et al. CSF filtration is an effective treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. Neurology2001; 57:774–80.
22. Imbach P, Barundun S, d'Apuzzo V, Baumgartner C, Hirt A, Morell A, et al. High dose intravenous gammaglobulin for idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura. Lancet1981; 1:1228–31.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. Vermeulin M, van der Meché FGA, Speelman JD, Weber A, Busch HFM. Plasma and gammaglobulin infusion in chronic inflammatory polyneuropathy. J Neurol Sci1985; 70:317–26.[Web of Science][Medline]
24. Kleyweg RP, van der Meché FGA. Treatment related fluctuations in Guillain-Barré syndrome after high-dose immunoglobulins or plasma-exchange. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat1991; 54:957–60.
25. van der Meché FGA, Schmitz PI. A randomized trial comparing intravenous immune globulin and plasma exchange in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Dutch Guillain-Barré Study Group. N Engl J Med1992; 326:1123–9.[Abstract]
26. Anonymous. Randomised trial of plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and combined treatments in Guillain-Barré syndrome: Plasma Exchange/Sandoglobulin Guillain-Barré Syndrome Trial Group. Lancet1997; 349:225–30.[Web of Science][Medline]
27. Gurses N, Uysal S, Cetinkaya F, Islek I, Kalayci AG. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in children with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Scand J Infect Dis1995; 27:241–3.[Web of Science][Medline]
28. Hughes RAC, Newsom-Davis JM, Perkin GD, Pierce JM. Controlled trial of prednisolone in acute polyneuropathy. Lancet1978; 2:750–3.[Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||