Appropriate number of plasma exchanges in Guillain-Barré syndrome. The French Cooperative Group on Plasma Exchange in Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Efficiency of plasma exchange in Guillain-Barré syndrome: role of replacement fluids. French Cooperative Group on Plasma Exchange in Guillain-Barré syndrome. A randomized trial comparing intravenous immune globulin and plasma exchange in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Dutch Guillain-Barré Study Group. Randomised trial of plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and combined treatments in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Plasma Exchange/Sandoglobulin Guillain-Barré Syndrome Trial Group. Pilot trial of immunoglobulin versus plasma exchange in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Intravenous immune globulins in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome and contraindications to plasma exchange: 3 days versus 6 days. Guillain-Barré syndrome: quantitative measurement of plasma exchange therapy. Intravenously administered immunoglobulin in the treatment of childhood Guillain-Barré syndrome: a randomized trial. Immunoglobulin treatment versus plasma exchange in patients with chronic moderate to severe myasthenia gravis.
Plasma exchange (PE) is the standard treatment in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) patients who have lost the ability to walk. The effect of exchanges before this stage and the optimal number of exchanges for the other patients are still unknown. We randomized 556 GBS patients according to severity and number of exchanges as follows: Zero versus 2 PEs for patients who could walk-with or without aid-but not run, or who could stand up unaided (mild group); 2 versus 4 PEs for patients who could not stand up unaided (moderate group); and 4 versus 6 PEs for mechanically ventilated patients (severe group). In the mild group, 2 PEs were more effective than none for time to onset of motor recovery (median, 4 vs 8 days, respectively). In the moderate group, 4 PEs were more beneficial than 2 for time to walk with assistance (median, 20 vs 24 days) and for 1-year full muscle-strength recovery rate (64% vs 46%). Six PEs were no more beneficial than 4 in the severe cases. Patients with mild GBS on admission should receive 2 PEs. Patients with moderate and severe forms should benefit from 2 further exchanges. The goals of this multicenter controlled trial were: (1) to study the short-term effect of plasma exchange in the Guillain-Barré syndrome when applied alone within 17 days of onset of the disease; and (2) to compare two replacement fluids, diluted albumin and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) with regard to efficacy and morbidity. Two hundred twenty patients were included, 111 in the control group, 109 in the plasma exchange group, 57 of whom were assigned to receive albumin and 52 to receive fresh frozen plasma. Treatment consisted of four plasma exchanges of two plasma volumes each, initiated on the day of randomization and repeated on alternate days. Significant short-term benefits appeared in the group that received plasma exchange as demonstrated by the reduction in the proportion of patients who required assisted ventilation after randomization, and the decrease in time before beginning weaning from ventilator, time to onset of motor recovery, and time to walk with and without assistance. No statistically significant difference was found between the group that received albumin and the group that received fresh frozen plasma. Incidents during exchanges and complications related to the plasma exchange were more frequent in patients who received fresh frozen plasma. Plasma exchange is beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome when it is carried out early in the course of the disease. Given its risks and the lack of its clear superiority over albumin, however, we recommend that fresh frozen plasma be abandoned in the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome. The subacute demyelinating polyneuropathy known as Guillain-Barré syndrome improves more rapidly with plasma exchange than with supportive care alone. We conducted a multicenter trial to determine whether intravenous immune globulin is as effective as the more complicated treatment with plasma exchange.
                To enter the study, patients had to have had Guillain-Barré syndrome for less than two weeks and had to be unable to walk independently. They were randomly assigned to receive either five plasma exchanges (each of 200 to 250 ml per kilogram of body weight) or five doses of a preparation of intravenous immune globulin (0.4 g per kilogram per day). The predefined outcome measure was improvement at four weeks by at least one grade on a seven-point scale of motor function.
                After 150 patients had been treated, strength had improved by one grade or more in 34 percent of those treated with plasma exchange, as compared with 53 percent of those treated with immune globulin (difference, 19 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 3 percent to 34 percent; P = 0.024). The median time to improvement by one grade was 41 days with plasma exchange and 27 days with immune globulin therapy (P = 0.05). The immune globulin group had significantly fewer complications and less need for artificial ventilation.
                In the acute Guillain-Barré syndrome, treatment with intravenous immune globulin is at least as effective as plasma exchange and may be superior. The relative efficacy of plasma exchange (PE) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome has not been established. We compared PE with IVIg, and with a combined regimen of PE followed by IVIg, in an international, multicentre, randomised trial of 383 adult patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome.
                The patients were randomly assigned PE (five 50 mL/kg exchanges over 8-13 days), IVIg (Sandoglobulin, 0.4 g/kg daily for 5 days), or the PE course immediately followed by the IVIg course. The inclusion criteria were severe disease (aid needed for walking) and onset of neuropathic symptoms within the previous 14 days. Patients were followed up for 48 weeks.
                Four patients were excluded because they did not meet the randomisation criteria. All the remaining 379 patients were assessed for the major outcome criterion-change on a seven-point disability grade scale-by an observer unaware of treatment assignment, 4 weeks after randomisation. At that time, the mean improvement was 0.9 (SD 1.3) in the 121 PE-group patients, 0.8 (1.3) in the 130 IVIg-group patients, and 1.1 (1.4) in the 128 patients who received both treatments (intention-to-treat analysis). None of the differences between the groups for this major outcome criterion was significant. The difference between PE alone and IVIg alone was so small that a 0.5 grade difference was excluded at the 95% level of confidence. There was no significant difference between any of the treatment groups in the secondary outcome measures: time to recovery of unaided walking, time to discontinuation of ventilation, and trend describing the recovery from disability up to 48 weeks. There was a non-significant trend towards a more favourable outcome on some outcome measures with combined treatment.
                In treatment of severe Guillain-Barré syndrome during the first 2 weeks after onset of neuropathic symptoms, PE and IVIg had equivalent efficacy. The combination of PE with IVIg did not confer a significant advantage. We compared intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and plasma exchange (PLEX) in the treatment of 50 patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Standard outcome measures did not differ for the two groups. Sixty-one percent of the PLEX-treated group and 69% of the IVIG-treated group improved by one disability grade at 1 month. The complication rate was higher in the PLEX-treated group. We conclude that the efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of GBS is comparable with that of PLEX and that it can be used safely, although we had a small number of patients. We did not observe a higher relapse rate with IVIG. The usefulness of combination therapy is unknown at this time. Plasma exchange is contraindicated in 10 to 20% of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The optimal schedule for intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) therapy has not yet been established in these patients. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of two IVIg treatment durations in patients with GBS with contraindications for plasma exchange. In this randomised, double blind, multicentre phase II trial conducted in seven French centres, patients with GBS with severe haemostasis, unstable haemodynamics, or uncontrolled sepsis were randomly assigned to 0.4 g/kg/day IVIg for 3 or 6 days. The primary outcome measure was the time needed to regain the ability to walk with assistance. Thirty nine patients were included from March 1994 to May 1997, 21 in the 3 day group and 18 in the 6 day group. Time to walking with assistance was non-significantly shorter in the 6 day group (84 (23-121) v 131 days (51-210), p=0.08); the difference was significant in ventilated patients (86 days (13-151) in the 6 day group v 152 days (54-332) in the 3 day group; p=0.04). The prevalence and severity of IVIg related adverse effects were comparable between the two groups. In conclusion, in patients with GBS and contraindications for plasma exchange, especially those who need ventilatory assistance, IVIg (0.4 g/kg/day) may be more beneficial when given for 6 days rather than 3 days. A prospective, controlled study with quantitative measurement of hand muscle-force for plasma exchange treatment in acute Guillain-Barré polyradiculitis was done. Of the 29 patients with severe symptoms, every second patient was selected to the plasma exchange group and all others to the control group. The muscle forces increased and CSF protein decreased significantly more in the plasma exchange group than in the control group, but there were no differences in hospitalization or recovery periods. To determine the optimal treatment for childhood Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS).
                We performed a randomized, multicenter study of GBS according to international diagnostic criteria. In study 1 (early treatment), children able to walk unaided for 5 meters were randomized for 1 g/kg intravenously administered immunoglobulin (IVIG) over 2 days or no treatment. The primary outcome measure was the degree of disability at nadir. In study 2 (treatment for severe GBS), children unable to walk 5 meters unaided were randomized for 1 g/kg IVIG over 2 days or 0.4 g/kg IVIG over 5 days. The primary outcome measure was the number of days needed to regain the ability to walk unaided. Children randomized for no treatment in study 1 could enter study 2 if loss of unaided walking occurred.
                Ninety-five children with GBS were registered in 40 months. Twenty-one children were randomized in study 1 and 51 in study 2 (5 after deterioration in study 1). Twenty-eight children were not randomized for various reasons. Eleven of 21 patients in study 1 lost the ability to walk unassisted and 6 were bedridden, with no statistically significant difference between the children initially randomized for treatment versus no treatment. Recovery occurred faster in the group randomized for early treatment. In study 2, recovery did not differ significantly between the children treated for 2 days versus 5 days (median time to unaided walking: 19 days vs 13 days). Secondary transient deterioration in the disability score occurred more frequently in the group with the 2-day regimen than in the group treated for 5 days (5 of 23 patients vs 0 of 23 patients). Multivariate analysis with Cox regression showed that disease severity at the nadir was the only prognostic factor for recovery.
                Treatment with IVIG before loss of unaided walking did not give rise to a less severe course, but recovery occurred somewhat faster. However, given the small number of patients, the power of this conclusion is low. For treatment after loss of unaided walking, there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of 2 g/kg IVIG administered over 2 days versus 5 days. Early "relapses" occurred more frequently after the shorter treatment regimen. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment with plasma exchange in patients suffering from moderate to severe myasthenia gravis (MG) in a stable phase. There are no controlled studies comparing IVIG with plasma exchange in patients who despite immunosuppressive treatment have persistent incapacitating MG symptoms. This was a controlled crossover study. Twelve patients with generalized moderate to severe MG on immunosuppressive treatment for at least 12 months were included. The patients were evaluated clinically using a quantified MG clinical score (QMGS) before and at follow-up visits after each treatment. One week after the treatments, the patients who received plasma exchange treatment showed a significant improvement in QMGS compared to baseline but although some improvement was seen after IVIG this did not reach statistical significance. Four weeks after both plasma exchange and IVIG treatments, there was a significant improvement in QMGS compared to baseline. One week and 4 weeks after treatment, no significant difference between the 2 treatments was found. Both treatments have a clinically significant effect 4 weeks out in patients with chronic MG, but the improvement has a more rapid onset after plasma exchange than after IVIG.
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.