Plasma exchange (PE) versus intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in patients with severe symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Q3 Neuroscience
Hany A. Zaki , Haris Iftikhar , Mavia Najam , Maarij Masood , Nood Dhafi R. Al-Marri , Mohamed Abdelgadir M. Elgassim , Mohamed Fayed , Eman E. Shaban
{"title":"Plasma exchange (PE) versus intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in patients with severe symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Hany A. Zaki ,&nbsp;Haris Iftikhar ,&nbsp;Mavia Najam ,&nbsp;Maarij Masood ,&nbsp;Nood Dhafi R. Al-Marri ,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdelgadir M. Elgassim ,&nbsp;Mohamed Fayed ,&nbsp;Eman E. Shaban","doi":"10.1016/j.ensci.2023.100468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>Guillain- Barré syndrome (GBS) is a neuropathic condition that leads to the rapid development of impairments and is characterized by weakness and numbness or tingling sensation in the legs and arms and sometimes loss of movement and feeling in the legs, arms, upper body, and face. Currently, the cure for the disease is yet to be developed. However, treatment options such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and plasma exchange (PE) have been used to minimize the symptoms and duration of the disease. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of IVIG and PE in treating GBS patients with severe symptoms.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>Six electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Medline, and Google scholar, were scoured for articles related and relevant to our research. Additionally, more studies were obtained through the reference lists of the studies retrieved from these electronic databases. Quality assessment and statistical data analysis were conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The search for relevant articles resulted in 3253 articles, of which only 20 were included for review in the current study. A sub-group analysis indicated no significant difference in the curative effect (Hughes score reduces by at least one score 4 weeks after GBS treatment; OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.66–1.52; <em>p</em> = 1.00 and Achieving grade 0 or 1 on Hughes scale; OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.27–3.94; <em>p</em> = 0.97). Similarly, the statistical showed that the difference in length of hospitalization and duration of mechanical ventilation was insignificant between the IVIG and PE group (Standard Mean Difference (SMD): -0.45; 95% CI: −0.92, 0.02; I<sup>2</sup> = 91%; <em>p</em> = 0.06 and SMD: -0.54; 95% CI: −1.67, 0.59; I<sup>2</sup> = 93%; <em>p</em> = 0.35, respectively). Moreover, the meta-analysis did not find any significant difference in the risk of GBS relapse (RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.20–1.14; <em>p</em> = 0.10) and risk of complications related to the treatment regimens (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.71–1.48; <em>p</em> = 0.89). However, the statistical analysis of outcomes from 3 studies showed that the risk of discontinuation was significantly lower in the IVIG group than in the PE group (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06–0.88; <em>p</em> = 0.03).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our study suggests that IVIG and PE have similar curative effects. Similarly, IVIG seems easier to use and thus can be preferred for treating GBS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37974,"journal":{"name":"eNeurologicalSci","volume":"31 ","pages":"Article 100468"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10242495/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eNeurologicalSci","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405650223000266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose

Guillain- Barré syndrome (GBS) is a neuropathic condition that leads to the rapid development of impairments and is characterized by weakness and numbness or tingling sensation in the legs and arms and sometimes loss of movement and feeling in the legs, arms, upper body, and face. Currently, the cure for the disease is yet to be developed. However, treatment options such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and plasma exchange (PE) have been used to minimize the symptoms and duration of the disease. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of IVIG and PE in treating GBS patients with severe symptoms.

Methodology

Six electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Medline, and Google scholar, were scoured for articles related and relevant to our research. Additionally, more studies were obtained through the reference lists of the studies retrieved from these electronic databases. Quality assessment and statistical data analysis were conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1).

Results

The search for relevant articles resulted in 3253 articles, of which only 20 were included for review in the current study. A sub-group analysis indicated no significant difference in the curative effect (Hughes score reduces by at least one score 4 weeks after GBS treatment; OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.66–1.52; p = 1.00 and Achieving grade 0 or 1 on Hughes scale; OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.27–3.94; p = 0.97). Similarly, the statistical showed that the difference in length of hospitalization and duration of mechanical ventilation was insignificant between the IVIG and PE group (Standard Mean Difference (SMD): -0.45; 95% CI: −0.92, 0.02; I2 = 91%; p = 0.06 and SMD: -0.54; 95% CI: −1.67, 0.59; I2 = 93%; p = 0.35, respectively). Moreover, the meta-analysis did not find any significant difference in the risk of GBS relapse (RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.20–1.14; p = 0.10) and risk of complications related to the treatment regimens (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.71–1.48; p = 0.89). However, the statistical analysis of outcomes from 3 studies showed that the risk of discontinuation was significantly lower in the IVIG group than in the PE group (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06–0.88; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that IVIG and PE have similar curative effects. Similarly, IVIG seems easier to use and thus can be preferred for treating GBS.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

血浆置换(PE)与静脉注射免疫球蛋白(IVIG)治疗严重症状患者格林-巴利综合征(GBS)的系统综述和荟萃分析
背景和目的格林-巴利综合征(GBS)是一种导致损伤快速发展的神经性疾病,其特征是腿部和手臂无力、麻木或刺痛感,有时腿部、手臂、上身和面部失去运动和感觉。目前,这种疾病的治疗方法尚待开发。然而,静脉注射免疫球蛋白(IVIG)和血浆置换(PE)等治疗方案已被用于尽量减少疾病的症状和持续时间。因此,本系统综述和荟萃分析比较了IVIG和PE治疗严重症状GBS患者的疗效。方法搜索了包括PubMed、Embase、Scopus、ScienceDirect、Medline和Google scholar在内的六个电子数据库,以查找与我们的研究相关的文章。此外,通过从这些电子数据库检索的研究参考文献列表,获得了更多的研究。使用Review Manager软件(RevMan 5.4.1)进行质量评估和统计数据分析。结果检索相关文章共3253篇,其中只有20篇纳入本研究进行审查。亚组分析表明,疗效无显著差异(GBS治疗4周后,Hughes评分至少降低一分;OR:1.00;95%CI:0.66–1.52;p=1.00;Hughes量表达到0或1级;OR:1.03;95%CI:0.27–3.94;p=0.97)。同样,统计显示IVIG组和PE组在住院时间和机械通气持续时间方面的差异不显著(SMD):-0.45;95%置信区间:-0.92,0.02;I2=91%;p=0.06,SMD:-0.54;95%置信区间:−1.67,0.59;I2=93%;p分别为0.35)。此外,荟萃分析未发现GBS复发风险(RR:0.47;95%CI:0.20-1.14;p=0.10)和与治疗方案相关的并发症风险(RR:1.03;95%CI:0.71–1.48;p=0.89)有任何显著差异。然而,对3项研究结果的统计分析显示,IVIG组的停药风险显著低于PE组(RR:0.22;95%CI:0.06–0.88;p=0.03)。结论我们的研究表明IVIG和PE具有相似的疗效。同样,IVIG似乎更容易使用,因此可以优先用于治疗GBS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
eNeurologicalSci
eNeurologicalSci Neuroscience-Neurology
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: eNeurologicalSci provides a medium for the prompt publication of original articles in neurology and neuroscience from around the world. eNS places special emphasis on articles that: 1) provide guidance to clinicians around the world (Best Practices, Global Neurology); 2) report cutting-edge science related to neurology (Basic and Translational Sciences); 3) educate readers about relevant and practical clinical outcomes in neurology (Outcomes Research); and 4) summarize or editorialize the current state of the literature (Reviews, Commentaries, and Editorials). eNS accepts most types of manuscripts for consideration including original research papers, short communications, reviews, book reviews, letters to the Editor, opinions and editorials. Topics considered will be from neurology-related fields that are of interest to practicing physicians around the world. Examples include neuromuscular diseases, demyelination, atrophies, dementia, neoplasms, infections, epilepsies, disturbances of consciousness, stroke and cerebral circulation, growth and development, plasticity and intermediary metabolism. The fields covered may include neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, neuroendocrinology, neuroepidemiology, neurogenetics, neuroimmunology, neuroophthalmology, neuropathology, neuropharmacology, neurophysiology, neuropsychology, neuroradiology, neurosurgery, neurooncology, neurotoxicology, restorative neurology, and tropical neurology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信