jneuroJournal of Neurology and NeuropsychiatrycoVolume 1 Issue 1 (Jan-June)MultidisciplinaryEnglish6 Months NNY2024059Neurodevelopmental DisordersImmunoadsorption vs. Plasma Exchange in Guillain-Barre Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic ReviewEnglishY816Levin AceDanganan1*EnglishNElizerMontemayor1EnglishYRenato Dejan Jr.1Danganan*EnglishYElizerMontemayorEnglishYRenato Dejan Jr.">100EnglishY000. Autoantibodies affecting peripheral nerve membranes play an important role in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of it. Treatment options for its cure continue to unfold and evolve. Different clinical trials resulted in increased interest in therapeutic apheresis for treatment of severe and refractory disease. Objectives: Conflicting results of immunoadsorption compared to plasma exchange in the management of Guillain-Barre Syndrome led us to synthesize available evidence from published studies. METHODS: Review Manager software was used for this review and classified the outcomes into primary (curative effect) and secondary (safety profile and relapse rate). Quality assessment and statistical data analysis were conducted using the said software. Result: The odds of achieving at least one grade disability and functional improvement was similar for patients treated with immunoadsorption and plasma exchange (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.34 - 1.74; p = 0.53). Reduced risk of complications for patients treated with immunoadsorption group as compared to plasma exchange group (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.43 - 1.11; p = 0.13) was noted. Increased risk of relapse for patients who underwent immunoadsorption (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.96 - 3.00; p = 0.07). Conclusion: Immunoadsorption is at least as effective as plasma exchange in the treatment of Guillain-Barre Syndrome based on its curative effect by lowering its disability and improving functional score. Immunoadsorption showed reduced complications but relapse rates were higher compared to plasma exchange.">https://jneuro.clsconf.com/issues/abstract?article_id=5">EnglishY10.71117/JNNP.2024.1103Background: Guillain-Barre Syndrome is a debilitating neurological disease with an incidence of 1.1 - 1.8 per 100,000. Autoantibodies affecting peripheral nerve membranes play an important role in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of it. Treatment options for its cure continue to unfold and evolve. Different clinical trials resulted in increased interest in therapeutic apheresis for treatment of severe and refractory disease.Objectives: Conflicting results of immunoadsorption compared to plasma exchange in the management of Guillain-Barre Syndrome led us to synthesize available evidence from published studies. METHODS: Review Manager software was used for this review and classified the outcomes into primary (curative effect) and secondary (safety profile and relapse rate). Quality assessment and statistical data analysis were conducted using the said software.Result: The odds of achieving at least one grade disability and functional improvement was similar for patients treated with immunoadsorption and plasma exchange (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.34 - 1.74; p = 0.53). Reduced risk of complications for patients treated with immunoadsorption group as compared to plasma exchange group (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.43 - 1.11; p = 0.13) was noted. Increased risk of relapse for patients who underwent immunoadsorption (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.96 - 3.00; p = 0.07).Conclusion: Immunoadsorption is at least as effective as plasma exchange in the treatment of Guillain-Barre Syndrome based on its curative effect by lowering its disability and improving functional score. Immunoadsorption showed reduced complications but relapse rates were higher compared to plasma exchange.EnglishImmunoadsorption, Plasma Exchange, Therapeutic Apheresis, Guillain-Barre Syndromehttps://jneuro.clsconf.com/admin/abstract?id=5References1619Aragone?s JM, Altimiras J, Alonso F, Celedo?n G, Alfonso S, Roura P et al. Incidence and clinical characteristics of Guillain-Barre? syndrome in Osona (Barcelona, Spain), 2003-2016. Neurologi?a (English Edition) 2021; 36: 525and;ndash;530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.nrleng.2018.03.020. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Bragazzi NL, Kolahi A-A, Nejadghaderi SA, Lochner P, Brigo F, Naldi A et al. Global, regional, and national burden of Guillainand;ndash;Barre? syndrome and its underlying causes from 1990 to 2019. Journal of Neuroinflammation 2021; 18. DOI: https://10.1186/s12974-021-02319-4. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Nguyen TP, Taylor RS. Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing 2023; Available from: https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532254/ [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Shahar E. Current Therapeutic Options in Severe Guillain-Barre?? Syndrome. Clinical Neuropharmacology 2006; 29: 45and;ndash;51. DOI: https://10.1097/00002826-200601000-00011 [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Zaki HA, Iftikhar H, Najam M, Masood M, Al-Marri NDR, Elgassim MAM et al. Plasma exchange (PE) versus intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for the treatment of Guillain-Barre? syndrome (GBS) in patients with severe symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. eNeurologicalSci 2023; 31: 100468., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensci.2023.10046 [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Diener HC and Putzki N (eds.) for the German Society for Neurology. Guidelines for Diagnosis and Therapy in Neurology (Leitlinien fu?r die Diagnostik und Therapie in der Neurologie). Georg Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart 2008 and www.dgb.de. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Wollinsky KH, Hu?lser P and;ndash;J., Brinkmeier H, Aulkemeyer P, Bo?ssenecker W, Huberand;ndash;Hartmann K and;ndash;H. et al. CSF filtration is an effective treatment of Guillainand;ndash;Barre? syndrome. Neurology 2001; 57: 774and;ndash;780. DOI: https://10.1212/wnl.57.5.774. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Rosenow F, Haupt WF, Grieb P, Jime?nez-Klingberg C, Borberg H. Plasma exchange and selective adsorption in Guillain-Barre? syndrome and;mdash;a comparison of therapies by clinical course and side effects. Transfusion Science 1993; 14: 13and;ndash;15. DOI: https://10.1016/0955-3886(93)90047-X. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Morosetti M, Meloni C, Gallucci MT, Rossini PM, Felicioni R, Palombo G et al. Plasmapheresis Versus Plasma Perfusion in Acute Guillain-Barre? Syndrome. ASAIO Journal 1994; 40: M638and;ndash;M642. DOI: https://10.1097/00002480-199407000-00076. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Haupt WF, Birkmann C, van der Ven C, Pawlik G. Apheresis and Selective Adsorption Plus Immunoglobulin Treatment in Guillain?Barre? Syndrome. Therapeutic Apheresis 2000; 4: 198and;ndash;200. DOI: https://10.1046/j.1526-0968.2000.00182.x. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Boedecker SC, Luessi F, Engel S, Kraus D, Klimpke P, Holtz S et al. Immunoadsorption and plasma exchangeand;mdash;Efficient treatment options for neurological autoimmune diseases. Journal of Clinical Apheresis 2021; 37: 70and;ndash;81. DOI: https://10.1002/jca.21953. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Diener H-C, Haupt WF, Kloss TM, Rosenow F, Philipp T, Koeppen S et al. A Preliminary, Randomized, Multicenter Study Comparing Intravenous Immunoglobulin, Plasma Exchange, and Immune Adsorption in Guillain-Barre? Syndrome. European Neurology 2001; 46: 107and;ndash;109. DOI: https://10.1159/000050777. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]Klingel R, Heibges A, Fassbender C. Plasma exchange and immunoadsorption for autoimmune neurologic diseases and;ndash; current guidelines and future perspectives. Atherosclerosis Supplements 2009; 10: 129and;ndash;132. DOI: https://10.1016/S1567-5688(09)71827-6. [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]