SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010
Intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Novel Immunological and Therapeutic Insights in Guillain-Barré Syndrome and CIDP.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2021Review
- Immunoglobulin G level variations in treated chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: clues for future treatment regimens?Journal of neurology · 2013Article
- Silencing of miR155 promotes the production of inflammatory mediators in Guillain-Barré syndrome in vitro.Inflammation · 2013Article
- Pioglitazone, PPARγ agonist, attenuates experimental autoimmune neuritis.Inflammation · 2012Article
- Immune mediated diseases and immune modulation in the neurocritical care unit.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2012Review
- Acute lung failure.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2011Review
- New insights into neuromyelitis optica.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2011Article
- Give or take? Intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome.Critical care (London, England) · 2011Article
- Inpatient management of guillain-barré syndrome.The Neurohospitalist · 2011Article
- Clinical applications of immunoglobulin: update.Revista brasileira de hematologia e hemoterapia · 2011Article
- Respiratory paralysis in a child: The severe axonal variant of childhood Guillain-Barré syndrome.Journal of pediatric neurosciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuillain-Barré syndrome is an acute, paralysing, inflammatory peripheral nerve disease. Intravenous immunoglobulin is beneficial in other autoimmune diseases.
objectivesWe aimed to determine the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain-Barré syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the searches of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2009 using the terms 'Guillain-Barré syndrome' and 'acute polyradiculoneuritis' combined with 'intravenous immunoglobulin'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected papers, extracted data and assessed quality. MAIN
resultsAnother Cochrane systematic review has shown that plasma exchange significantly hastens recovery. In this review, five trials compared intravenous immunoglobulin with plasma exchange in 536 severely affected, mostly adult participants. The mean difference of change in a seven-grade disability scale after four weeks was not significantly different between the two treatments: 0.02 (95% CI 0.25 to -0.20) of a grade more improvement in the intravenous immunoglobulin than the plasma exchange group. There were also no statistically significant differences in the other measures considered. Three studies including a total of 75 children suggested that intravenous immunoglobulin significantly hastens recovery compared with supportive care.In one trial involving 249 participants comparing plasma exchange followed by intravenous immunoglobulin with plasma exchange alone, the mean grade improvement was 0.2 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.54) more in the combined treatment group than in the plasma exchange alone group, not significantly different but not excluding the possibility of significant extra benefit. Another trial with 37 participants comparing immunoabsorption followed by intravenous immunoglobulin with immunoabsorption alone did not reveal significant extra benefit from the combined treatment.Small trials in children showed a trend towards more improvement with high-dose compared with low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin and no significant difference when the standard dose was given over two days rather than five days. AUTHORS'
conclusionsA previous Cochrane review has shown that plasma exchange hastens recovery compared with supportive treatment alone. There are no adequate comparisons of intravenous immunoglobulin with placebo in adults but this review provides moderate quality evidence that, in severe disease, intravenous immunoglobulin started within two weeks from onset hastens recovery as much as plasma exchange. Adverse events were not significantly more frequent with either treatment but intravenous immunoglobulin is significantly much more likely to be completed than plasma exchange. Also according to moderate quality evidence, giving intravenous immunoglobulin after plasma exchange did not confer significant extra benefit. In children, according to low quality evidence, intravenous immunoglobulin 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.