This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tasdemir, H. A. Articles by Uysal, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tasdemir, H. A. Articles by Uysal, S. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Medline Plus Health Information Guillain-Barre Syndrome Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Guillain-Barré Syndrome: How Effective?

Department of Paediatrics Division of Child Neurology Ondokuz Mays University Faculty of Medicine Samsun, Turkey

Cengiz Dilber, MD

Department of Paediatrics Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Faculty of Medicine Kahramanmaras, Turkey, cengizdilber{at}ksu.edu.tr.

Yilmaz Kanber, MD

Department of Paediatrics Division of Paediatrics State Hospital of Kirikkale Kirikkale, Turkey

Serap Uysal, MD

Department of Paediatrics Division of Neurology Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Medical School Istanbul, Turkey

Guillain-Barré syndrome is an acute inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy characterized by progressive symmetric polyradiculoneuritis, predominantly manifested by weakness and areflexia. In this article, we report our findings in 25 children treated with intravenous immunoglobulin and compare them with the remaining 30 children who received supportive care only. Only supportive care was given to 30 children who were not able to receive intravenous gammaglobulin because of shortcomings in intravenous gammaglobulin availability owing to a poor import during those years. Twenty-five patients were treated with intravenous gammaglobulin; they received intravenous gammaglobulin 0.4 g/kg/day for 5 consecutive days. Seventeen of the intravenous gammaglobulin group had received intravenous gammaglobulin within 10 days after the first symptoms, and eight of them had received intravenous gammaglobulin after the first 10 days. The average time elapsed for the symptoms to reach the maximum level was 6.9 (range 4—12) days in patients receiving intravenous gammaglobulin in the first 10 days, and it was significantly shorter than the time elapsed for the supportive care group (6.9 versus 8.8 days, respectively) (P < .05). Admission to the hospital after the first symptom, disability grade, time to improve in disability grade, the period of hospitalization, and mortality were not different in the intravenous gammaglobulin and supportive care groups (P > .05). Our suggestion for intravenous gammaglobulin treatment in Guillain-Barré syndrome is that if the patient has risk factors for respiratory insufficiency, then the treatment should be started. We more confidently carry out the follow-up of these patients after the results of this study. In conclusion, although it has been reported that intravenous gammaglobulin facilitates improvement in the disease and the decrease in mortality in children with Guillain-Barré syndrome, it has been mentioned in some studies that the intravenous gammaglobulin treatment was not better than supportive care, as in our study. However, further studies are essential to determine when intravenous gammaglobulin should be given to patients having which clinical and laboratory findings. (J Child Neurol 2006;21:972—974; DOI 10.2310/ 7010.2006.00214).

Journal of Child Neurology, Vol. 21, No. 11, 972-974 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/08830738060210110701


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?