Disease-specific divergence of inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers in neurocritical neuromuscular disorders

By
Sezgin Kehaya
Erdi Şensöz
May 13, 2026
0 min

Frontiers In Neurology

Overview

This study compares inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers in patients with Myasthenia Gravis (MG) and Guillain–Barré Syndrome (GBS). It highlights the prognostic significance of these biomarkers in relation to disease severity and clinical outcomes, particularly noting the differences in their utility between the two conditions.

Background

Myasthenia gravis and Guillain–Barré syndrome are critical neuromuscular disorders that can lead to severe respiratory complications requiring intensive care. Understanding the role of inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers is essential for improving patient management and outcomes. This study aims to clarify the prognostic value of these biomarkers in hospitalized patients with MG and GBS.

Data Highlights

Biomarker	Correlation with Severity	Condition
NLR	Strong	MG
SII	Strong	MG
LAR	Correlated	MG
Neurological Severity	Significant	Both
Mechanical Ventilation	10.5%	Both

Key Findings

Mechanical ventilation was required in 10.5% of patients, correlating with initial neurological severity (p < 0.001).
In MG, NLR and SII were strong indicators of severe disease and negative outcomes.
Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and LDH to albumin ratio (LAR) correlated with disease severity in MG.
In GBS, neurological severity assessments primarily influenced outcomes, with limited prognostic significance from inflammatory indices.
Post-treatment increases in transaminases were modestly correlated with more severe disease in GBS.

Clinical Implications

Clinicians should consider the use of inflammatory markers and LDH-related metrics, particularly LAR, for risk stratification in MG patients. In GBS, the focus should remain on assessing neurological impairment to predict clinical outcomes effectively.

Conclusion

The study underscores the differential utility of biomarkers in MG and GBS, suggesting that tailored approaches to monitoring and treatment may enhance patient care. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings.