Guillain-Barré syndrome: History, pathogenesis, treatment, and future directions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since its description by Guillain, Barré, and Strohl in 1916, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) has attracted a large literature. The author reviews the history of research into its pathogenesis and treatment to highlight promising avenues for future research. METHODS: This is a nonsystematic personal review. RESULTS: Since the early 1900s, the clinical picture of GBS has been illustrated in multiple series culminating in the ongoing International Guillain-Barré Syndrome study of 2000 patients. In the 1950s and 1960s, the inflammatory nature of the commonest form, acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (AIDP), was described. In the 1990s, two axonal forms, acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy and acute motor axonal neuropathy, were recognized. In the 1990s and early 2000s, these forms were shown to be due to antibodies against Campylobacter jejuni glycans cross-reacting with glycolipids on axonal membranes. The pathogenesis of AIDP remains unknown, but T-cell responses to the compact myelin proteins, P2 and P0, which cause experimental autoimmune neuritis, suggest that T cells are important. Randomized controlled trials in the 1970s and 1980s showed no benefit from corticosteroids. Trials in the 1980s showed benefit from plasma exchange and in the 1990s from intravenous immunoglobulin. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should seek biomarkers to identify subgroups with different treatment responses, define the true natural history of the disease with population-based epidemiological studies, study the pathology in autopsies early in the disease, seek causative antibodies and confirm autoimmune T-cell responses in AIDP, and expand treatment trials to include anti-T-cell agents.

An innovative phase 2 proof-of-concept trial design to evaluate SAR445088, a monoclonal antibody targeting complement C1s in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is a rare immune-mediated disease of the peripheral nerves, with significant unmet treatment needs. Clinical trials in CIDP are challenging; thus, new trial designs are needed. We present design of an open-label phase 2 study (NCT04658472) evaluating efficacy and safety of SAR445088, a monoclonal antibody targeting complement C1s, in CIDP. METHODS: This phase 2, proof-of-concept, multicenter, open-label trial will evaluate the efficacy, and safety of SAR445088 in 90 patients with CIDP across three groups: (1) currently treated with standard-of-care (SOC) therapies, including immunoglobulin or corticosteroids (SOC-Treated); (2) refractory to SOC (SOC-Refractory); and (3) naïve to SOC (SOC-Naïve). Enrolled participants undergo a 24-week treatment period (part A), followed by an optional treatment extension for up to an additional 52 weeks (part B). In part A, the primary endpoint for the SOC-Treated group is the percentage of participants with a relapse after switching from SOC to SAR445088. The primary endpoint for the SOC-Refractory and SOC-Naïve groups is the percentage of participants with a response, compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints include safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and efficacy of SAR445088 during 12-week overlapping period (SOC-Treated). Part B evaluates long-term safety and durability of efficacy. Data analysis will be performed using Bayesian statistics (predefined efficacy thresholds) and historical data-based placebo assumptions to support program decision-making. INTERPRETATION: This innovative trial design based on patient groups and Bayesian statistics provides an efficient paradigm to evaluate new treatment candidates across the CIDP spectrum and can help accelerate development of new therapies.

[Evidence based guidelines. Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps]. / Guía basada en la evidencia. Diagnóstico y manejo del síndrome de Guillain-Barré en diez pasos.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare, but potentially fatal, immune-mediated disease of the peripheral nerves and nerve roots that is usually triggered by infections. The incidence of GBS can therefore increase during outbreaks of infectious diseases, as was seen during the Zika virus epidemics in 2013 in French Polynesia and in 2015 in Latin America. Diagnosis and management of GBS can be complicated as its clinical presentation and disease course are heterogeneous, and no international clinical guidelines are currently available. To support clinicians, especially in the context of an outbreak, we have developed a globally applicable guideline for the diagnosis and management of GBS. The guideline is based on current literature and expert consensus, and has a ten-step structure to facilitate its use in clinical practice. We first provide an introduction to the diagnostic criteria, clinical variants and differential diagnoses of GBS. The ten steps then cover early recognition and diagnosis of GBS, admission to the intensive care unit, treatment indication and selection, monitoring and treatment of disease progression, prediction of clinical course and outcome, and management of complications and sequelae.

El síndrome de Guillain-Barré (SGB) es una enfermedad inmunológica del nervio periférico y las raíces nerviosas, poco frecuente, potencialmente mortal y que suele desencadenarse por infecciones. La incidencia del SGB puede aumentar durante el brote de enfermedades infecciosas, tal como se observó en las epidemias del virus Zika en la Polinesia Francesa en 2013 y en América Latina en 2015. El diagnóstico y el manejo clínico del SGB pueden ser complicados ya que su presentación y el curso de la enfermedad son heterogéneos, y actualmente no se cuenta con guías clínicas internacionales. Para respaldar a los médicos, especialmente en el contexto de un brote de una enfermedad infecciosa, hemos desarrollado una guía clínica aplicable en todo el mundo para el diagnóstico y el tratamiento del SGB. La guía se basa en literatura actualizada y el consenso de expertos, y tiene una estructura de diez pasos para facilitar su uso en la práctica clínica. Inicialmente, brindamos una introducción a los criterios de diagnóstico, variantes clínicas y diagnósticos diferenciales del SGB. Los diez pasos luego abordan el reconocimiento y el diagnóstico temprano del SGB, la admisión a la unidad de cuidados intensivos, indicación y selección de tratamiento, seguimiento y tratamiento de la progresión de la enfermedad, predicción del curso clínico, resultados y tratamiento de complicaciones y secuelas.

Guía basada en la evidencia. Diagnóstico y manejo del síndrome de Guillain-Barré en diez pasos / Evidence based guidelines. Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps

Resumen El síndrome de Guillain-Barré (SGB) es una enfermedad inmunológica del nervio periférico y las raíces nerviosas, poco frecuente, potencialmente mortal y que suele desencadenarse por infecciones. La incidencia del SGB puede aumentar durante el brote de enfermedades infecciosas, tal como se observó en las epidemias del virus Zika en la Polinesia Francesa en 2013 y en América Latina en 2015. El diagnóstico y el manejo clínico del SGB pueden ser complicados ya que su presentación y el curso de la enfermedad son heterogéneos, y actualmente no se cuenta con guías clínicas internacionales. Para respaldar a los médicos, especialmente en el contexto de un brote de una enfermedad infecciosa, hemos desarrollado una guía clínica aplicable en todo el mundo para el diagnóstico y el tratamiento del SGB. La guía se basa en literatura actualizada y el consenso de expertos, y tiene una estructura de diez pasos para facilitar su uso en la práctica clínica. Inicialmente, brindamos una introducción a los criterios de diagnóstico, variantes clínicas y diagnósticos diferenciales del SGB. Los diez pasos luego abordan el reconocimiento y el diagnóstico temprano del SGB, la admisión a la unidad de cuidados intensivos, indicación y selección de tratamiento, seguimiento y tratamiento de la progresión de la enfermedad, predicción del curso clínico, resultados y tratamiento de complicaciones y secuelas.

Abstract Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare, but potentially fatal, immune-mediated disease of the peripheral nerves and nerve roots that is usually triggered by infections. The incidence of GBS can therefore increase during outbreaks of infectious diseases, as was seen during the Zika virus epidemics in 2013 in French Polynesia and in 2015 in Latin America. Diagnosis and management of GBS can be complicated as its clinical presentation and disease course are heterogeneous, and no international clinical guidelines are currently available. To support clinicians, especially in the context of an outbreak, we have developed a globally applicable guideline for the diagnosis and management of GBS. The guideline is based on current literature and expert consensus, and has a ten-step structure to facilitate its use in clinical practice. We first provide an introduction to the diag nostic criteria, clinical variants and differential diagnoses of GBS. The ten steps then cover early recognition and diagnosis of GBS, admission to the intensive care unit, treatment indication and selection, monitoring and treatment of disease progression, prediction of clinical course and outcome, and management of complications and sequelae.

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for mild Guillain-Barré syndrome: an international observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the disease course in patients with mild Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) who were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or supportive care only. METHODS: We selected patients from the prospective observational International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) who were able to walk independently at study entry (mild GBS), treated with one IVIg course or supportive care. The primary endpoint was the GBS disability score four weeks after study entry, assessed by multivariable ordinal regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 188 eligible patients, 148 (79%) were treated with IVIg and 40 (21%) with supportive care. The IVIg group was more disabled at baseline. IVIg treatment was not associated with lower GBS disability scores at 4 weeks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.13). Nearly all secondary endpoints showed no benefit from IVIg, although the time to regain full muscle strength was shorter (28 vs 56 days, p=0.03) and reported pain at 26 weeks was lower (n=26/121, 22% vs n=12/30, 40%, p=0.04) in the IVIg treated patients. In the subanalysis with persistent mild GBS in the first 2 weeks, the aOR for a lower GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 2.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 7.13). At 1 year, 40% of all patients had residual symptoms. CONCLUSION: In patients with mild GBS, one course of IVIg did not improve the overall disease course. The certainty of this conclusion is limited by confounding factors, selection bias and wide confidence limits. Residual symptoms were often present after one year, indicating the need for better treatments in mild GBS.

Original research: 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 '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.

Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare, but potentially fatal, immune-mediated disease of the peripheral nerves and nerve roots that is usually triggered by infections. The incidence of GBS can therefore increase during outbreaks of infectious diseases, as was seen during the Zika virus epidemics in 2013 in French Polynesia and 2015 in Latin America. Diagnosis and management of GBS can be complicated as its clinical presentation and disease course are heterogeneous, and no international clinical guidelines are currently available. To support clinicians, especially in the context of an outbreak, we have developed a globally applicable guideline for the diagnosis and management of GBS. The guideline is based on current literature and expert consensus, and has a ten-step structure to facilitate its use in clinical practice. We first provide an introduction to the diagnostic criteria, clinical variants and differential diagnoses of GBS. The ten steps then cover early recognition and diagnosis of GBS, admission to the intensive care unit, treatment indication and selection, monitoring and treatment of disease progression, prediction of clinical course and outcome, and management of complications and sequelae.

Regional variation of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a heterogeneous disorder regarding the clinical presentation, electrophysiological subtype and outcome. Previous single country reports indicate that Guillain-Barré syndrome may differ among regions, but no systematic comparative studies have been conducted. Comparative studies are required to identify factors determining disease susceptibility, variation and prognosis, and to improve diagnostic criteria. The International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study is a prospective, observational cohort study including all patients within the diagnostic spectrum, aiming to describe the heterogeneity of Guillain-Barré syndrome worldwide. The current study was based on the first 1000 inclusions with a follow-up of at least 1 year and confirmed the variation in clinical presentation, course and outcome between patients. The full clinical spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome was observed in patients from all countries participating in the International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study, but the frequency of variants differed between regions. We compared three regions based on geography, income and previous reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: 'Europe/Americas', 'Asia' (without Bangladesh), and 'Bangladesh'. We excluded 75 (8%) patients because of alternative diagnoses, protocol violations, or missing data. The predominant clinical variant was sensorimotor in Europe/Americas (n = 387/562, 69%) and Asia (n = 27/63, 43%), and pure motor in Bangladesh (n = 74/107, 69%). Miller Fisher syndrome and Miller Fisher-Guillain-Barré overlap syndrome were more common in Asia (n = 14/63, 22%) than in the other two regions (Europe/Americas: n = 64/562, 11%; Bangladesh: n = 1/107, 1%) (P < 0.001). The predominant electrophysiological subtype was demyelinating in all regions (Europe/Americas: n = 312/573, 55%; Asia: n = 29/65, 45%; Bangladesh: n = 38/94, 40%). The axonal subtype occurred more often in Bangladesh (n = 34/94, 36%) than in Europe/Americas (n = 33/573, 6%) and other Asian countries (n = 4/65, 6%) (P < 0.001). In all regions, patients with the axonal subtype were younger, had fewer sensory deficits, and showed a trend towards poorer recovery compared to patients with the demyelinating subtype. The proportion of patients able to walk unaided after 1 year varied between Asia (n = 31/34, 91%), Europe/Americas (n = 334/404, 83%) and Bangladesh (n = 67/97, 69%) (P = 0.003). A similar variation was seen for mortality, being higher in Bangladesh (n = 19/114, 17%) than in Europe/Americas (n = 23/486, 5%) and Asia (n = 1/45, 2%) (P < 0.001). This study showed that factors related to geography have a major influence on clinical phenotype, disease severity, electrophysiological subtype, and outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study: protocol of a prospective observational cohort study on clinical and biological predictors of disease course and outcome in Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy with a highly variable clinical presentation, course, and outcome. The factors that determine the clinical variation of GBS are poorly understood which complicates the care and treatment of individual patients. The protocol of the ongoing International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS), a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study that aims to identify the clinical and biological determinants and predictors of disease onset, subtype, course and outcome of GBS is presented here. Patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for GBS, regardless of age, disease severity, variant forms, or treatment, can participate if included within 2 weeks after onset of weakness. Information about demography, preceding infections, clinical features, diagnostic findings, treatment, course, and outcome is collected. In addition, cerebrospinal fluid and serial blood samples for serum and DNA is collected at standard time points. The original aim was to include at least 1,000 patients with a follow-up of 1-3 years. Data are collected via a web-based data entry system and stored anonymously. IGOS started in May 2012 and by January 2017 included more than 1,400 participants from 143 active centers in 19 countries across 5 continents. The IGOS data/biobank is available for research projects conducted by expertise groups focusing on specific topics including epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, clinimetrics, electrophysiology, antecedent events, antibodies, genetics, prognostic modeling, treatment effects, and long-term outcome of GBS. The IGOS will help to standardize the international collection of data and biosamples for future research of GBS.

Progress in inflammatory neuropathy -the legacy of Dr Jack Griffin.

The past quarter of a century has brought incredible advances in our understanding of inflammatory neuropathies, and the insights into Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) began in the 1990s with the seminal work of Dr Jack Griffin and his colleagues. In this essay, we provide a tribute to Jack, and review the recent progress in a field that he termed his personal favourite. In particular, we discuss the new developments in our understanding and diagnosis of inflammatory neuropathies, the recent emergence of the node of Ranvier and the paranode as sites of intensive investigation, and the mechanistic evidence that is providing a platform for therapeutic development studies.

Plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an uncommon progressive or relapsing paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves. If the hypothesis that it is due to autoimmunity is correct, removal of autoantibodies in the blood by plasma exchange should be beneficial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating CIDP. SEARCH METHODS: On 30 June 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also scrutinised the bibliographies of the trials, contacted the trial authors and other disease experts, and searched trials registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in participants of any age comparing plasma exchange with sham treatment or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the review authors combined data according to the methods of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Review Group. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: one cross-over trial including 18 participants showed after four weeks, 2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 3.0) points more improvement on an 11-point disability scale with plasma exchange (10 exchanges over four weeks) than with sham exchange. Rapid deterioration after plasma exchange occurred in eight of 12 who had improved. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: when we combined the results of this cross-over trial and a trial with 29 participants treated in a parallel-group design, there were 31 points (95% CI 16 to 45) more improvement on an impairment scale (maximum score 280) after plasma exchange (six exchanges over three weeks) than after sham exchange. There were significant improvements in both trials in an electrophysiological measure, the proximally evoked compound muscle action potential, after three or four weeks. Nonrandomised evidence indicates that plasma exchange induces adverse events in 3% to 17% of procedures. These events are sometimes serious. Both trials had a low risk of bias. A trial that showed no significant difference in the benefit between plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin is included in the Cochrane review of intravenous immunoglobulin for this condition. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate- to high-quality evidence from two small trials shows that plasma exchange provides significant short-term improvement in disability, clinical impairment, and motor nerve conduction velocity in CIDP but rapid deterioration may occur afterwards. Adverse events related to difficulty with venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes are not uncommon. We need more research to identify agents that will prolong the beneficial action of plasma exchange.

Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is characterised by progressive, predominantly distal, asymmetrical limb weakness and usually multiple partial motor nerve conduction blocks. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is beneficial but the role of immunosuppressive agents is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy. SEARCH METHODS: On 22 September 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS for trials of MMN. We also searched two trials registers for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We considered prospective and retrospective case series and case reports in the Discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors searched the titles and abstracts of the articles identified and extracted the data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Only one RCT of an immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory agent has been performed in MMN. This study randomised 28 participants and showed that mycophenolate mofetil, when used with IVIg, did not significantly improve strength, function or reduce the need for IVIg. No serious adverse events were observed. The study was deemed at low risk of bias. We summarised the results of retrospective and prospective case series in the discussion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to moderate quality evidence, mycophenolate mofetil did not produce significant benefit in terms of reducing need for IVIg or improving muscle strength in MMN. Trials of other immunosuppressants should be undertaken.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: from pathology to phenotype.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an inflammatory neuropathy, classically characterised by a slowly progressive onset and symmetrical, sensorimotor involvement. However, there are many phenotypic variants, suggesting that CIDP may not be a discrete disease entity but rather a spectrum of related conditions. While the abiding theory of CIDP pathogenesis is that cell-mediated and humoral mechanisms act together in an aberrant immune response to cause damage to peripheral nerves, the relative contributions of T cell and autoantibody responses remain largely undefined. In animal models of spontaneous inflammatory neuropathy, T cell responses to defined myelin antigens are responsible. In other human inflammatory neuropathies, there is evidence of antibody responses to Schwann cell, compact myelin or nodal antigens. In this review, the roles of the cellular and humoral immune systems in the pathogenesis of CIDP will be discussed. In time, it is anticipated that delineation of clinical phenotypes and the underlying disease mechanisms might help guide diagnostic and individualised treatment strategies for CIDP.

Corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness probably due to an autoimmune response which should benefit from corticosteroids. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, called dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment compared to placebo or no treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimes. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched three other databases for information to include in the Discussion, and clinical trials registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials of treatment with any form of corticosteroids or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted the data and assessed risk of bias independently. The primary outcome was intended to be change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks as a secondary outcome, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In one non-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 35 eligible participants, the primary outcome for this review was not available. The trial had a high risk of bias. Twelve of 19 participants treated with prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment, had improved neuropathy impairment scores after 12 weeks; the risk ratio (RR) for improvement was 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52). Adverse events were not reported in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.In a double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants, none of the outcomes for this review were available. The trial had a low risk of bias. There were no significant differences in remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone) or change in disability or impairment after one year. Eight of 16 in the prednisolone, and seven of 24 in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Adverse events were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness and moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) were significantly less common with monthly dexamethasone.Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low quality evidence from one small, randomised trial did not show a statistically significant benefit from oral prednisone compared with no treatment. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice. According to moderate quality evidence from one RCT, the efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone was not statistically different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most adverse events occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but sleeplessness and moon facies were significantly less common with monthly dexamethasone. Further research is needed to identify factors which predict response.

Intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute, paralysing, inflammatory peripheral nerve disease. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is beneficial in other autoimmune diseases. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and previously updated in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2012. Other Cochrane systematic reviews have shown that plasma exchange (PE) significantly hastens recovery in GBS compared with supportive treatment alone, and that corticosteroids alone are ineffective. OBJECTIVES: We had the following four objectives.1. To examine the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS).2. To determine the most efficacious dose of IVIg in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from GBS.3. To compare the efficacy of IVIg and plasma exchange (PE) or immunoabsorption in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from GBS.4. To compare the efficacy of IVIg added to PE with PE alone in hastening recovery and reducing the long-term morbidity from GBS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (2 December 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2013) and EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013). We checked the bibliographies in reports of the randomised trials and contacted the authors and other experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of IVIg compared with no treatment, placebo treatment, PE, or other immunomodulatory treatments in children and adults with GBS of all degrees of severity. We also included trials in which IVIg was added to another treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected papers, extracted data and assessed quality. We collected data about adverse events from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials were found to be eligible for inclusion in this review. Seven trials with a variable risk of bias compared IVIg with PE in 623 severely affected participants. In five trials with 536 participants for whom the outcome was available, the mean difference (MD) of change in a seven-grade disability scale after four weeks was not significantly different between the two treatments: MD of 0.02 of a grade more improvement in the intravenous immunoglobulin than the plasma exchange group; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to -0.20. There were also no statistically significant differences in the other measures considered. Three studies including a total of 75 children suggested that IVIg significantly hastens recovery compared with supportive care. The primary outcome for this review, available for only one trial with 21 mildly affected children, showed significantly more improvement in disability grade after four weeks with IVIg than supportive treatment alone, MD 1.42, 95% CI 2.57 to 0.27.In one trial involving 249 participants comparing PE followed by IVIg with PE alone, the mean grade improvement was 0.2 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.54) more in the combined treatment group than in the PE alone group; not clinically significantly different, but not excluding the possibility of significant extra benefit. Another trial with 34 participants comparing immunoabsorption followed by IVIg with immunoabsorption alone did not reveal significant extra benefit from the combined treatment.Adverse events were not significantly more frequent with either treatment, but IVIg is significantly much more likely to be completed than PE.Small trials in children showed a trend towards more improvement with high-dose compared with low-dose IVIg, and no significant difference when the standard dose was given over two days rather than five days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A previous Cochrane review has shown that PE hastens recovery compared with supportive treatment alone. There are no adequate comparisons of IVIg with placebo in adults, but this review provides moderate quality evidence that, in severe disease, IVIg started within two weeks from onset hastens recovery as much as PE. Adverse events were not significantly more frequent with either treatment but IVIg is significantly much more likely to be completed than PE. Also, according to moderate quality evidence, giving IVIg after PE did not confer significant extra benefit. In children, according to low quality evidence, IVIg probably hastens recovery compared with supportive care alone. More research is needed in mild disease and in patients whose treatment starts more than two weeks after onset. Dose-ranging studies are also needed and one is in progress.

Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy, chronic pain or fibromyalgia.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A number of trials have been conducted to investigate the use of duloxetine in neuropathic and nociceptive painful conditions. This is the first update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain. SEARCH METHODS: On 19th November 2013, we searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials in April 2013. We also searched the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of any formulation of duloxetine, used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 trials, which included 6407 participants. We found 12 of these studies in the literature search for this update. Eight studies included a total of 2728 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and six studies involved 2249 participants with fibromyalgia. Three studies included participants with depression and painful physical symptoms and one included participants with central neuropathic pain. Studies were mostly at low risk of bias, although significant drop outs, imputation methods and almost every study being performed or sponsored by the drug manufacturer add to the risk of bias in some domains. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short term, with a risk ratio (RR) for ≥ 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.73 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.08). The related NNTB is 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective for fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR for ≥ 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 21) and over 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27) as well as for painful physical symptoms in depression (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 14). There was no effect on central neuropathic pain in a single, small, high quality trial. In all conditions, adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm, with a dose-dependent effect. Most adverse effects were minor, but 16% of participants stopped the drug due to adverse effects. Serious adverse events were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is adequate amounts of moderate quality evidence from eight studies performed by the manufacturers of duloxetine that doses of 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy but lower daily doses are not. Further trials are not required. In fibromyalgia, there is lower quality evidence that duloxetine is effective at similar doses to those used in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and with a similar magnitude of effect. The effect in fibromyalgia may be achieved through a greater improvement in mental symptoms than in somatic physical pain. There is low to moderate quality evidence that pain relief is also achieved in pain associated with depressive symptoms, but the NNTB of 8 in fibromyalgia and depression is not an indication of substantial efficacy. More trials (preferably independent investigator led studies) in these indications are required to reach an optimal information size to make convincing determinations of efficacy.Minor side effects are common and more common with duloxetine 60 mg and particularly with 120 mg daily, than 20 mg daily, but serious side effects are rare.Improved direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs, such as pregabalin, that have already been shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate. Unbiased economic comparisons would further help decision making, but no high quality study includes economic data.