Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013, and 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We found six trials of five different interventions eligible for inclusion in this review. The trials were conducted in hospitals in Canada, China, Germany, Japan and the UK, and included 151 participants in total. All trials randomised participants aged 16 years and older (mean or median age in the trials ranged from 36 to 57 years in the intervention groups and 34 to 60 years in the control groups) with severe GBS, defined by the inability to walk unaided. One trial also randomised patients with mild GBS who were still able to walk unaided. We identified two new trials at this update.The primary outcome measure for this review was improvement in disability grade four weeks after randomisation. Four of six trials had a high risk of bias in at least one respect. We assessed all evidence for the outcome mean improvement in disability grade as very low certainty, which means that we were unable to draw any conclusions from the data. One RCT with 19 participants compared interferon beta-1a (IFNb-1a) and placebo. It is uncertain whether IFNb-1a improves disability after four weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.1; 95% CI -1.58 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 10 participants compared brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BNDF) and placebo. It is uncertain whether BDNF improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 37 participants compared cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) filtration and plasma exchange. It is uncertain whether CSF filtration improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.62 to 0.66; very low-certainty evidence). One trial that compared the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside with corticosteroids with 43 participants did not report the risk ratio (RR) for an improvement by one or more disability grade after four weeks, but did report improvement after eight weeks. It is uncertain whether tripterygium polyglycoside improves disability after eight weeks (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). We performed a meta-analysis of two trials comparing eculizumab and placebo with 41 participants. It is uncertain whether eculizumab improves disability after four weeks (MD -0.23; 95% CI -1.79 to 1.34; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were uncommon in each of the trials and evidence was graded as either low or very low. It is uncertain whether serious adverse events were more common with IFNb-1a versus placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.72; 19 participants), BNDF versus placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.54; 10 participants) or CSF filtration versus plasma exchange (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.25; 37 participants). The trial of tripterygium polyglycoside did not report serious adverse events. There may be no clear difference in the number of serious adverse events after eculizumab compared to placebo (RR 1.90, 0.34 to 10.50; 41 participants). We found no clinically important differences in any of the outcome measures selected for this review in any of the six trials. However, sample sizes were small and therefore clinically important benefit or harm cannot be excluded. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All six RCTs were too small to exclude clinically important benefit or harm from the assessed interventions. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all interventions and outcomes.

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 corticosteroid treatment. 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, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens. SEARCH METHODS: On 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: One non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.A double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.

Drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (CIAP) is an insidiously progressive sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy that affects elderly people. Although severe disability or handicap does not occur, CIAP reduces quality of life. CIAP is diagnosed in 10% to 25% of people referred for evaluation of polyneuropathy. There is a need to gather and review emerging evidence on treatments, as the number of people affected is likely to increase in ageing populations. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of drug therapy for chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy for reducing disability and ameliorating neurological symptoms and associated impairments, and to assess any adverse effects of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2016, we searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We searched two trials registries for ongoing trials. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and textbooks identified electronically, and we would have contacted authors and other experts in the field to identify additional studies if this seemed useful. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised (alternate or other systematic treatment allocation) trials that examined the effects of any drug therapy in people with CIAP at least one year after the onset of treatment. People with CIAP had to fulfil the following criteria: age 40 years or older, distal sensory or sensorimotor polyneuropathy, absence of systemic or other neurological disease, chronic clinical course not reaching a nadir in less than two months, exclusion of any recognised cause of the polyneuropathy by medical history taking, clinical or laboratory investigations, and electrophysiological studies in agreement with axonal polyneuropathy, without evidence of demyelinating features. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a significant improvement in disability. Secondary outcomes were change in the mean disability score, change in the proportion of participants who make use of walking aids, change in the mean Medical Research Council sum score, degree of pain relief and/or reduction of other positive sensory symptoms, change in the proportion of participants with pain or other positive sensory symptoms, and frequency of adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the results of the literature search and extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data of all potentially relevant trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 39 studies and assessed them for possible inclusion in the review, but we excluded all of them because of insufficient quality or lack of relevance. We summarised evidence from non-randomised studies in the Discussion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Even though CIAP has been clearly described and delineated, no adequate randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical treatment trials have been performed. In their absence there is no proven efficacious drug therapy.

Immunomodulatory treatment other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a disease that causes progressive or relapsing and remitting weakness and numbness. It is probably caused by an autoimmune process. Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs would be expected to be beneficial. This review was first published in 2003 and has been updated most recently in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive agents other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and plasma exchange in CIDP. SEARCH METHODS: On 24 May 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS for completed trials, and clinical trial registers for ongoing trials. We contacted the authors of the trials identified and other disease experts seeking other published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised and quasi-randomised trials of all immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, ciclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil, and rituximab, and all immunomodulatory agents, such as interferon (IFN) alfa and IFN beta, in participants fulfilling standard diagnostic criteria for CIDP. We included all comparisons of these agents with placebo, another treatment, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We wanted to measure the change in disability after one year as our primary outcome. Our secondary outcomes were change in disability after four or more weeks (from randomisation); change in impairment after at least one year; change in maximum motor nerve conduction velocity and compound muscle action potential amplitude after one year; and for participants who were receiving corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), the amount of this medication given during at least one year after randomisation. Participants with one or more serious adverse events during the first year was also a secondary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials fulfilled the selection criteria: one of azathioprine (27 participants), two of IFN beta-1a (77 participants in total) and one of methotrexate (60 participants). The risk of bias was considered low in the trials of IFN beta-1a and methotrexate but high in the trial of azathioprine. None of the trials showed significant benefit in any of the outcomes selected by their authors. The results of the outcomes which approximated most closely to the primary outcome for this review were as follows.In the azathioprine trial there was a median improvement in the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (scale range 0 to 280) after nine months of 29 points (range 49 points worse to 84 points better) in the azathioprine and prednisone treated participants compared with 30 points worse (range 20 points worse to 104 points better) in the prednisone alone group. There were no reports of adverse events.In a cross-over trial of IFN beta-1a with 20 participants, the treatment periods were 12 weeks. The median improvement in the Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (range 1 to 10) was 0.5 grades (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8 grades better to zero grade change) in the IFN beta-1a treatment period and 0.5 grades (IQR 1.8 grades better to 1.0 grade worse) in the placebo treatment period. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment period.In a parallel group trial of IFN beta-1a with 67 participants, none of the outcomes for this review was available. The trial design involved withdrawal from ongoing IVIg treatment. The primary outcome used by the trial authors was total IVIg dose administered from week 16 to week 32 in the placebo group compared with the IFN beta-1a groups. This was slightly but not significantly lower in the combined IFN beta-1a groups (1.20 g/kg) compared with the placebo group (1.34 g/kg, P = 0.75). There were four participants in the IFN beta-1a group and none in the placebo group with one or more serious adverse events, risk ratio (RR) 4.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 80.05).The methotrexate trial had a similar design involving withdrawal from ongoing corticosteroid or IVIg treatment. At the end of the trial (approximately 40 weeks) there was no significant difference in the change in the Overall Neuropathy Limitations Scale, a disability scale (scale range 0 to 12), the median change being 0 (IQR -1 to 0) in the methotrexate group and 0 (IQR -0.75 to 0) in the placebo group. These changes in disability might have been confounded by the reduction in corticosteroid or IVIg dose required by the protocol. There were three participants in the methotrexate group and one in the placebo with one or more serious adverse events, RR 3.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 32.23). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence from randomised trials does not show significant benefit from azathioprine or interferon beta-1a and moderate-quality evidence from one randomised trial does not show significant benefit from a relatively low dose of methotrexate for the treatment of CIDP. None of the trials was large enough to rule out small or moderate benefit. The evidence from observational studies is insufficient to avoid the need for randomised controlled trials to discover whether these drugs are beneficial. Future trials should have improved designs, more sensitive outcome measures relevant to people with CIDP, and longer treatment durations.

Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating GBS. SEARCH METHODS: On 18 January 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment, or comparing different regimens or techniques of plasma exchange. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: In the first version of this review there were six eligible trials concerning 649 participants comparing plasma exchange with supportive treatment. No new eligible trials have been identified in subsequent updates. Two other studies compared different numbers of plasma exchanges. Overall the included trials had a moderate risk of bias (in general, the studies were at low risk but all had a high risk of bias from lack of blinding).In one trial with 220 severely affected participants, the median time to recover walking with aid was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (30 days) than without plasma exchange (44 days). In another trial with 91 mildly affected participants, the median time to onset of motor recovery was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (six days) than without plasma exchange (10 days). After four weeks, moderate-quality evidence from the combined data of three trials accounting for a total of 349 patients showed that plasma exchange significantly increased the proportion of patients who recovered the ability to walk with assistance (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.15).In five trials with 623 participants in total, moderate-quality evidence showed that the RR for improvement by one or more disability grades after four weeks was 1.64 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.96) times greater with plasma exchange. Participants treated with plasma exchange also fared better, according to moderate-quality evidence, in time to recover walking without aid (three trials with 349 participants; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.79) and requirement for artificial ventilation (five trials with 623 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). More participants had relapses by the end of follow-up in the plasma exchange group than in the control group (six trials with 649 participants; RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.93; moderate-quality evidence). Despite this, according to moderate-quality evidence, the likelihood of full muscle strength recovery at one year was greater with plasma exchange than without plasma exchange (five trials with 404 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45), and the likelihood of severe motor sequelae was less (six trials with 649 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96). High-quality evidence from six trials with 649 participants could not confirm or refute a lower risk of death following plasma exchange compared to control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.65).Three trials (N = 556) provided details of serious adverse events during the hospital stay; combined analyses found no increase in serious infectious events compared to the control group (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.13), nor were there clear differences in blood pressure instability, cardiac arrhythmias or pulmonary emboli. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence shows significantly more improvement with plasma exchange than with supportive care alone in adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome, without a significant increase in serious adverse events. According to moderate-quality evidence, 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 who were not treated. Despite this, after one year, full recovery of muscle strength was more likely and severe residual weakness less likely with plasma exchange.

Treatments for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP): an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments. METHODS: We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus. MAIN RESULTS: Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS. SEARCH METHODS: On 18 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment. We also identified a number of non-randomised studies during the search, the results of which we considered in the Discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials during this update of the review. In previous versions of this review we identified only very low quality evidence for four different interventions published in four studies. Each study had a high risk of bias in at least one respect. One RCT with 19 participants comparing interferon beta-1a and placebo showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. Another with 10 participants comparing brain-derived neurotrophic factor and placebo showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. A third with 37 participants comparing cerebrospinal fluid filtration and plasma exchange also showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. In a fourth with 43 participants, the risk ratio for an improvement by one or more disability grade after eight weeks was greater with the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside than with corticosteroids (risk ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.11); other outcomes in this trial showed no difference. Serious adverse events were uncommon with each of these treatments and in the control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence was very low. Three small RCTs, comparing interferon beta-1a or brain-derived neurotrophic factor with placebo, and cerebrospinal fluid filtration with plasma exchange, showed no significant benefit or harm for any of the interventions. A fourth small trial showed that the Chinese herbal medicine, tripterygium polyglycoside, hastened recovery in people with GBS to a greater extent than corticosteroids, but this result needs confirmation. We were unable to draw any useful conclusions from the few observational studies we identified.

Corticosteroids for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit. OBJECTIVES: To examine the ability of corticosteroids to hasten recovery and reduce the long-term morbidity from GBS. SEARCH METHODS: On 12 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone versus placebo or supportive care alone in GBS. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors used standard methods expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: The review authors discovered no new trials in the new searches in June 2009, November 2011, or January 2016. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, mean difference (MD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was very low quality evidence of less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, MD 0.82 disability grades less improvement (95% CI 0.17 to 1.47 grades less). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was moderate quality evidence of no significant difference of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39). According to moderate quality evidence, there was also no significant difference between the corticosteroid treated and control groups for improvement by one or more grades after four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) or for death or disability after one year (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.5). We found high quality evidence that the occurrence of diabetes was more common (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.12) and hypertension less common (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) in the corticosteroid-treated participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to very low quality evidence, oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was more common and hypertension less common with corticosteroids based on high quality evidence.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown.   OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the evidence from randomised controlled trials for pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (5 July 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2010) for treatments for GBS. We considered evidence from non-randomised studies in the Discussion. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of acute (within four weeks from onset) GBS of all types, ages and degrees of severity. We discarded trials which only tested corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo treatment or another treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Change in disability after four weeks was the primary outcome. Two authors checked references and extracted data independently. One author entered and another checked data in Review Manager (RevMan). We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated mean differences and risk ratios with their 95% confidence intervals. We assessed strength of evidence with GradePro software. MAIN RESULTS: Only very low quality evidence was found for four different interventions. One randomised controlled trial with 13 participants showed no significant difference in any outcome between interferon beta-1a and placebo. Another with 10 participants showed no significant difference in any outcome between brain-derived neurotrophic factor and placebo. A third with 37 participants showed no significant difference in any outcome between cerebrospinal fluid filtration and plasma exchange. In a fourth with 20 participants, the risk ratio of improving by one or more disability grades after eight weeks was significantly greater with the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside than with corticosteroids (risk ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence was very low. Three small randomised controlled trials, of interferon beta-1a, brain-derived neurotrophic factor and cerebrospinal fluid filtration, showed no significant benefit or harm. A fourth small trial showed that the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside hastened recovery significantly more than corticosteroids but this result needs confirmation. It was not possible to draw useful conclusions from the few observational studies.

Immunomodulatory treatment other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy is a disease causing progressive or relapsing and remitting weakness and numbness. It is probably due to an autoimmune process. Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs would be expected to be beneficial. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review systematically the evidence from randomised trials of cytotoxic drugs and interferons other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialised Register (May 2010), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1977 to May 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2010), CINAHL (January 1982 to May 2010) and LILACS (January 1982 to May 2010). We contacted the authors of the trials identified and other disease experts seeking other published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised and quasi-randomised trials of all immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, ciclosporin A, mycophenolate mofetil, and rituximab and all immunomodulatory agents such as interferon alfa and interferon beta in participants fulfilling standard diagnostic criteria for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, judged their methodological quality and extracted data. We wanted to measure the change in disability after one year as our primary outcome. Our secondary outcomes were change in disability after four or more weeks (from randomisation), change in impairment after at least one year, change in maximum motor nerve conduction velocity and compound muscle action potential amplitude after one year and for those participants who were receiving corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulin, the amount of this medication given during at least one year after randomisation. Participants with one or more serious adverse events during the first year was also a secondary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials fulfilled the selection criteria, one of azathioprine (27 participants), two of interferon beta-1a (77 participants in total) and one of methotrexate (60 participants). None of these trials showed significant benefit in the primary outcome or secondary outcomes selected for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from randomised trials does not show significant benefit from azathioprine, interferon beta-1a or methotrexate but none of the trials was large enough to rule out small or moderate benefit. The evidence from observational studies is insufficient to avoid the need for randomised controlled trials to discover whether these drugs are beneficial. Future trials should have improved designs, more sensitive outcome measures and longer durations.

Intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Guillain-Barré syndrome is an acute, paralysing, inflammatory peripheral nerve disease. Intravenous immunoglobulin is beneficial in other autoimmune diseases. OBJECTIVES: We 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 RESULTS: Another 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' CONCLUSIONS: A 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.

Corticosteroids for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Guillain-Barré syndrome is caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids should benefit. OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy of corticosteroids. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Specialized Register (June 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2009) and EMBASE from (January 1980 to June 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included quasi-randomised or randomised controlled trials of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were discovered in the new search in June 2009. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was significantly less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, WMD 0.82 disability grades less improvement, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was no significant difference, WMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.39) of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids. According to moderate to high quality evidence, there were no significant differences between the corticosteroid-treated and the control groups in any of the secondary efficacy outcomes. Diabetes was significantly more common and hypertension significantly much less common in the corticosteroid-treated participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to low quality evidence oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was significantly more and hypertension less common with corticosteroids.

Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy or chronic pain.

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. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register (10 March 2009), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2009), and www.clinicaltrials.gov to March 2009 and the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine used 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 adult participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently onto a specially designed proforma and cross checked them. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were identified including 2220 participants. Three studies included participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and three treated participants with fibromyalgia. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short-term to 12 weeks with a risk ratio (RR) for 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.03), number needed to treat (NNT) 6 (95% CI 5 to 10). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective in fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNT 8, 95% CI 5 to 17) and 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27). Adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm with a dose dependent effect. Most side effects were minor, but 16% of participants stopped the drug due to side effects. Serious adverse events were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderately strong evidence that duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia but 20 mg daily is not. Minor side effects are common at therapeutic doses but serious side effects are rare. Direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs already shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate and should include unbiased economic analyses.