Pain Control in a Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial Comparing Moist Exposed Burn Ointment and Conventional Methods in Patients With Partial-Thickness Burns

Utilization of Acupuncture and Herbal Ointment Instead of Skin Graft Surgery for the Treatment of Burn Injuries: A Case Series and Literature review

Skin graft surgery is a standard treatment that increases the survival rate of patients with burn injuries; however, it leaves many sequelae. Conventional external preparations for the treatment of burns also have various side effects. In this retrospective case study, we assessed the cases of four patients with topical third-degree burns who did not wish to undergo the skin graft surgeries recommended by medical doctors and were thus treated using traditional medicine alone. A Korean medicine doctor administered integrative traditional medicine treatment to the patients using acupuncture and herbal ointments. Analysis of the patients' treatment photographs, quantitative evaluation indices, and vivid narratives suggested that their skin recovered well without adverse effects. Traditional Korean medicine treatment, including acupuncture and herbal ointment treatment, can be a new alternative therapeutic strategy for the treatment of patients with topical burns who do not want to undergo skin graft surgery or who have higher risks for poor surgical outcomes.

The use of moist exposed burn ointment (MEBO) for the treatment of burn wounds: a systematic review

Moist exposed burn ointment (MEBO) is an oil-based herbal paste, purported to be efficacious in managing burn wounds and more commonly used in Asia and the Middle East. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was performed to analyse the evidence for the use of MEBO on burn wounds. Wound healing rate was the primary outcome of interest. PubMed-listed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of MEBO with placebo, standard care or other therapies in the treatment of partial thickness burns in adults and children were eligible for inclusion (November 2019). Six RCTs were eligible. The majority of trials comparing wound healing between MEBO and SSD favoured MEBO (two of three). There may be improved healing in MEBO-treated wounds vs. those treated with povidone-iodine + bepanthenol cream. There was no difference between MEBO and Acquacel Ag, but Helix Aspersa had faster healing rates than MEBO. However, all evidence was from moderately to poorly reported trials with a high risk of bias, thereby limiting the strength of this evidence. In conclusion, the evidence for MEBO in English-language literature was poor and inconsistent with respect to wound healing rate and analgesis compared to 1% SSD, Acquacel Ag, Helix aspersa cream and povidone-iodine + bepanthenol cream. Blinded RCTs comparing MEBO to both placebo and other common topical treatments may further improve the confidence in concluding their analysis. There is some evidence that MEBO is as safe as its comparators as shown by the low complication rate.

Randomized, Prospective, Open-label Phase III Trial Comparing Mebo Ointment With Biafine Cream for the Management of Acute Dermatitis During Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Acute radiation dermatitis is a common side-effect of radiotherapy in breast cancer and has a profound impact on patients' quality of life, due to pain and discomfort. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of β-sitosterol (Mebo) ointment to trolamine (Biafine) cream for the prevention and treatment of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective open-label randomized phase III study developed to assess the efficacy of 2 topical agents used for management of acute radiation dermatitis. Female breast cancer patients who needed a course of radiation therapy in our institution were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups 1 with Mebo ointment and 1 with Biafine cream. Both medications were applied twice per day during the whole period of treatment and skin reactions and related symptoms were assessed weekly during the entire course. Grading of skin reactions was done according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system.

RESULTS

Between September 2015 and May 2017, a total of 161 patients were recruited for this trial. Mean age was similar for both groups (50.19±12.57 vs. 51.73±11.23, respectively, P=0.41). All other patients and treatment characteristics were similar in both groups, except for the use of boost (82.7% in the Biafine group vs. 36.7% in Mebo group, P=0.012). Analysis was done for reactions recorded before the beginning of the boost and for the entire course including the boost. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in grades 2 and 3 dermatitis between the 2 groups. However, the incidence of severe pruritus and severe local skin pain were both significantly reduced in the Mebo group (14.1% in Biafine vs. 2.9% in Mebo, P=0.016 for pruritus and 11.5% vs. 1.4%, respectively, P=0.02 for severe pain).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed no difference between Mebo and Biafine in the incidence and severity of breast skin dermatitis during radiation therapy. However, the use of Mebo ointment was associated with decreased severe pruritus and pain which could positively affect patient comfort and quality of life.

Antiseptics for burns

BACKGROUND

Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I² = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I² = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I² = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I² = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I² = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.

Moist exposed burn ointment for treating pressure ulcers: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers often seriously affect the quality of life of patients. Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO) has been developed to treat patients with pressure ulcers. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MEBO in the treatment of pressure ulcers in Chinese patients.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients with pressure ulcers were randomly assigned to 2 groups who received a placebo or MEBO for 2 months. The primary outcomes included the wound surface area (WSA) and pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) tool. The secondary outcomes included a visual analog scale (VAS), questionnaire of ulcer status, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients completed the study. After 2 months of treatment, the difference of mean change from the baseline was greater for MEBO (vs placebo) for WSA mean (SD) -6.0 (-8.8, -3.3), PUSH Tool -2.6 (-4.7, -1.5), and VAS score -2.9 (-4.4, -1.7). On the basis of the questionnaire, the pressure ulcers were "completely healed" (50.0% vs 16.7%) (P < .05) in patients after 2 months of treatment with MEBO versus placebo. No major adverse effects were found in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

We showed that MEBO is effective and well tolerated for improving wound healing in Chinese patients with pressure ulcers.

Role of epidermal stem cells in repair of partial-thickness burn injury after using Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO(®)) histological and immunohistochemical study

Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO(®)) is widely used topical agent applied on skin burn. This study investigated the effect of MEBO topical application on activation and proliferation of epidermal stem cells through the immunohistochemical localization of cytokeratin 19 (CK19) as a known marker expressed in epidermal stem cells. Biopsies from normal skin and burn wounds were taken from 21 patients with partial thickness burn 1, 4, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after treatment with MEBO. Tissue sections were prepared for histological study and for CK19 immunohistochemical localization. In control skin, only few cells showed a positive CK19 immune-reaction. Burned skin showed necrosis of full thickness epidermis that extended to dermis. Gradual regeneration of skin accompanied with an enhancement in CK19 immune-reactivity was noted 4, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment with MEBO. On day 28, a complete regeneration of skin was observed with a return of CK19 immune-reactivity to the basal pattern again. In conclusion, the enhancement of epidermal stem cell marker CK19 after treatment of partial thickness burn injuries with MEBO suggested the role of MEBO in promoting epidermal stem cell activation and proliferation during burn wound healing.

Emerging new drugs for wound repair

Every year, millions of people experience burns, suffer from nonhealing wounds, or have acute wounds that become complicated by infection, dehiscence or problematic scarring. Effective wound treatment requires carefully considered interventions often requiring multiple clinic or hospital visits. The resulting costs of wound care are staggering, and more efficacious and cost-effective therapies are needed to decrease this burden. Unfortunately, the expenses and difficulties encountered in performing clinical trials have led to a relatively slow growth of new treatment options for the wound management. Research efforts attempting to examine wound pathophysiology have been hampered by the lack of an adequate chronic wound healing model, and the complexity of the wound healing cascade has limited attempts at pharmacological modification. As such, currently available wound healing therapies are only partially effective. Therefore, many new therapies are emerging that target various aspects of wound repair and the promise of new therapeutic interventions is on the immediate horizon.

A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Acticoat Versus Silver Sulfadiazine in the Treatment of Partial-Thickness Burns: Which Method Is Less Painful?

Despite recent improvements in analgesia, pain control during dressing changes continues to be a major challenge in patients with burns. We investigated two different dressing modalities to compare how much pain the patient experienced during and after the dressing change. Patients with partial-thickness burns that required only topical wound care were assigned randomly to treatment with Acticoat (Smith and Nephew USA, Largo, FL) or silver sulfadiazine (AgSD). The outcome variable was pain during wound care, which was measured using visual analog pain scores. The mean visual analog pain scores for the wounds treated with Acticoat or AgSD wounds were 3.2 and 7.9, respectively (P < .0001; paired Student's t-test). In 41 of the 47 paired pain score observations, the pain in the wound treated with AgSD was perceived as greater than in the wound treated with Acticoat. Burn wound care with Acticoat is less painful than burn wound care with AgSD in patients with selected partial-thickness burns.

On the evolution of statistical methods as applied to clinical trials

This paper describes how statistical methods have evolved in parallel with activities associated with randomized control trials. In particular we emphasize the pivotal role of two papers published in British Journal of Cancer, and the paper describing the Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, the importance of early papers on estimating the sample size required for trials is highlighted. Later developments including the increasing roles for competing risks, multilevel modelling and Bayesian methodologies are described. The interplay between computer software and statistical methodological developments is stressed. Finally some future directions are indicated.