4.7 Review

Axonal variants of Guillain-Barre syndrome: an update

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 268, 期 7, 页码 2402-2419

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-09742-2

关键词

Axonal GBS; Acute motor axonal neuropathy; Acute motor and sensory axonal neuropathy; Guillain-Barre syndrome

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0110304]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31600820, 81771257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Axonal variants of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) have diverse triggers, but key questions remain unanswered and current therapies have limitations. Autoantibody classification and electrophysiology are crucial for differentiation, with emerging technologies facilitating more accurate diagnosis.
Axonal variants of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) mainly include acute motor axonal neuropathy, acute motor and sensory axonal neuropathy, and pharyngeal-cervical-brachial weakness. Molecular mimicry of human gangliosides by a pathogen's lipooligosaccharides is a well-established mechanism for Campylobacter jejuni-associated GBS. New triggers of the axonal variants of GBS (axonal GBS), such as Zika virus, hepatitis viruses, intravenous administration of ganglioside, vaccination, and surgery, are being identified. However, the pathogenetic mechanisms of axonal GBS related to antecedent bacterial or viral infections other than Campylobacter jejuni remain unknown. Currently, autoantibody classification and serial electrophysiology are cardinal approaches to differentiate axonal GBS from the prototype of GBS, acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Newly developed technologies, including metabolite analysis, peripheral nerve ultrasound, and feature selection via artificial intelligence are facilitating more accurate diagnosis of axonal GBS. Nevertheless, some key issues, such as genetic susceptibilities, remain unanswered and moreover, current therapies bear limitations. Although several therapies have shown considerable benefits to experimental animals, randomized controlled trials are still needed to validate their efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据