Faustino, PCoutinho, MBrum, MMedeiros, LLadeira, F2024-05-032024-05-032022-10J Neurol Sci . 2022 Oct 15:441:120368.http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4889Introduction: The treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or plasma exchange (PE) reduces time to clinical recovery. Although sometimes used in clinical practice, the benefit of a second treatment cycle is of unproven benefit. Aims: Our aim was to compare GBS prognosis in patients treated with one or two cycles of IVIg or PE. Methods: We selected patients with electrophysiological studies compatible with acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy or acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy, from January 2018 to December 2020 in our hospital. Our primary outcome was any improvement in the Guillain-Barré Syndrome Disability Score (GBS-DS) at a mean of twelve weeks. We compared patients treated with one or two treatment cycles with a binary regression. Results: We included twenty-six patients, 65.4% with the classical presentation and 30.8% were treated with two cycles. Patients treated with two cycles presented a higher basal GBS-DS (median 4; IQR 1-5) compared with the group of patients treated with one cycle (median 3; IQR 1-5), p = 0.01. The remaining basal characteristics were similar between groups. The two-cycle treatment regimen did not associate with an improvement in GBS-DS (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03-2.35, p = 0.24). Likewise there was no benefit in the need for intensive care unit (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.37-10.92, p = 0.42) or mechanical invasive ventilation (OR 10.2, 95% CI 0.86-120.96, p = 0.66). Discussion: Our analysis reinforces the recent literature data regarding the absence of benefit of two treatment cycles in patients with GBS.engHSJ NEUGuillain-Barre Syndrome* / drug therapyImmunoglobulins, Intravenous* / therapeutic usePlasma ExchangePlasmapheresisPrognosisjournal article10.1016/j.jns.2022.120368