A Quasi-Experimental Trial of Daily Versus Alternate-DayPlasmapheresis in the Management of Guillain-Barré Syndrome in aTertiary Neurology Center
Abstract
To evaluate clinical outcomes, recovery trajectory, and operational advantages of consecutive-day versus alternate-day plasmapheresis schedules in patients with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) managed in a high-volume public neurology ward.
This quasi-experimental study enrolled 80 adults meeting Brighton Criteria levels 1–3. Participants were allocated non-randomly into two equal groups receiving either consecutive-day or alternate-day plasmapheresis, five sessions each. Primary outcomes included improvement on the Hughes Disability Scale (HDS) at four weeks and length of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included time to ambulation, ventilator requirement, complications, and estimated system-level cost reduction. Statistical analysis used chi-square and t-tests with significance at p<0.05.
Neurological improvement at four weeks did not differ significantly between the daily and alternate-day groups (72.5% vs. 75%; p=0.78). However, consecutive-day therapy significantly reduced length of hospital stay (9.2±2.1 vs. 14.8±3.4 days; p<0.001) and enabled earlier ambulation (p=0.03). Ventilation needs and complication rates were comparable. Estimated resource utilization showed approximately a 21% reduction in system expenditure with the daily regimen.
Daily plasmapheresis offers clinical outcomes equivalent to alternate-day therapy while markedly decreasing hospital stay and resource consumption. In overburdened public-sector hospitals, a consecutive-day protocol provides a more efficient and practical treatment strategy without compromising patient safety.
How to Cite This Article
Imran R, Zaheer M, Saeed F, Yousaf Q, Farooq S, Hassan SWU. A Quasi-Experimental Trial of Daily Versus Alternate-DayPlasmapheresis in the Management of Guillain-Barré Syndrome in aTertiary Neurology Center. J Pak Soc Intern Med. 2026;7(1):68–61. doi:10.70302/jpsim.v7i1.2612
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare no competing interests.
Funding
No specific funding was received for this research.
Funder information follows the Crossref Funder Registry standard.
References
- Willison HJ, Jacobs BC, van Doorn PA. Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet. 2019;394(10216):1214-28.
- Doets AY, Verboon C, van den Berg B, Harbo T, Cornblath DR, Willison HJ, et al. Regional variation of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):576-85.
- Leonhard SE, Mandarakas MR, Gondim FA, Bateman K, Ferreira ML, Cornblath DR, et al. Diagnosis and management of Guillain–Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(11):671-83.
- Dziedzic T, Slowik A. Treatment challenges of GBS in LMICs. Neurol Clin Pract. 2019;9(3):219-26.
- Shahrizaila N, Lehmann HC, Kuwabara S. Guillain-barré syndrome. Lancet. 2021;397(10280):1214-28.
- Ye Y, Xia L. Optimizing plasmapheresis strategies in Guillain-Barre syndrome: A practical approach. Transfus Apher Sci. 2021;60(4):103257.
- Patwa HS, Chaudhry V. Apheresis practice trends. J Clin Apher. 2020;35(2):89-96.
- Chaudhary R, Das SS. Plasmapheresis in neurology: Current protocols. Ther Apher Dial. 2022;26(1):63-70.
- Singh NK, Syal P. Guillain-barré syndrome outcomes in South Asia. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2022;25(2):205-12.
- Liu C, Zhang M. Daily vs. alternate-day therapeutic plasma exchange in Guillain-barré syndrome. Neurol Sci. 2023;44:1789-96.
- Khan S, Ahmad F. Challenges in managing Guillain-barré syndrome in Pakistan. Pak J Neurol Sci. 2021;16(4):28-33
- Fayed A, Abdelrahman A. Efficiency of modified TPE regimens. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg. 2020;56:112.
Reference list indexed for Google Scholar and ResearchGate. DOI links resolve via doi.org.