Double-blind, randomized, pilot study assessing the resolution of postburn pruritus

Interventions for postburn pruritus

BACKGROUND

Postburn pruritus (itch) is a common and distressing symptom experienced on healing or healed burn or donor site wounds. Topical, systemic, and physical treatments are available to control postburn pruritus; however, it remains unclear how effective these are.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for treating postburn pruritus in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and scanned references of relevant publications to identify eligible trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, publication date, or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with postburn pruritus to compare an intervention for postburn pruritus with any other intervention, placebo or sham intervention, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs assessing 21 interventions with 1166 randomised participants. These 21 interventions can be grouped into six categories: neuromodulatory agents (such as doxepin, gabapentin, pregabalin, ondansetron), topical therapies (such as CQ-01 hydrogel, silicone gel, enalapril ointment, Provase moisturiser, beeswax and herbal oil cream), physical modalities (such as massage therapy, therapeutic touch, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, enhanced education about silicone gel sheeting), laser scar revision (pulsed dye laser, pulsed high-intensity laser, fractional CO2 laser), electrical stimulation (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation), and other therapies (cetirizine/cimetidine combination, lemon balm tea). Most RCTs were conducted at academic hospitals and were at a high risk of performance, attrition, and detection bias. While 24 out of 25 included studies reported change in burn-related pruritus, secondary outcomes such as cost-effectiveness, pain, patient perception, wound healing, and participant health-related quality of life were not reported or were reported incompletely. Neuromodulatory agents versus antihistamines or placebo There is low-certainty evidence that doxepin cream may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with oral antihistamine (mean difference (MD) -2.60 on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.79 to -1.42; 2 studies, 49 participants). A change of 2 points represents a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether doxepin cream impacts the incidence of somnolence as an adverse event compared to oral antihistamine (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; 1 study, 24 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with cetirizine (MD -2.40 VAS, 95% CI -4.14 to -0.66; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin may result in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with cetirizine with pheniramine maleate (MD -0.80 VAS, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.36; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.69; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ondansetron probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with diphenhydramine (MD -0.76 on a 0 to 10 numeric analogue scale (NAS), 95% CI -1.50 to -0.02; 1 study, 38 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Topical therapies versus relevant comparators There is moderate-certainty evidence that enalapril ointment probably decreases mean burn-related pruritus compared with placebo control (MD -0.70 on a 0 to 4 scoring table for itching, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.36; 1 study, 60 participants). No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Physical modalities versus relevant comparators Compared with standard care, there is low-certainty evidence that massage may reduce burn-related pruritus (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.86, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.27; 2 studies, 166 participants) and pain (SMD -1.32, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.98). These SMDs equate to a 4.60-point reduction in pruritus and a 3.74-point reduction in pain on a 10-point VAS. A change of 2 VAS points in itch represents a MCID. No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. There is low-certainty evidence that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with sham stimulation (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.75; 2 studies, 91 participants). This equates to a 5.93-point reduction in pruritus on a 22-point 12-item Pruritus Severity Scale. There is low-certainty evidence that ESWT may reduce pain compared with sham stimulation (MD 2.96 on a 0 to 25 pressure pain threshold (PPT), 95% CI 1.76 to 4.16; 1 study, 45 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. Laser scar revision versus untreated or placebo controls There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with placebo laser (MD -0.51 on a 0 to 1 Itch Severity Scale (ISS), 95% CI -0.64 to -0.38; 1 study, 49 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably reduces pain compared with placebo laser (MD -3.23 VAS, 95% CI -5.41 to -1.05; 1 study, 49 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate to low-certainty evidence on the effects of 21 interventions. Most studies were small and at a high risk of bias related to blinding and incomplete outcome data. Where there is moderate-certainty evidence, practitioners should consider the applicability of the evidence for their patients.

Burn Injury Complications Impacting Rehabilitation

Successful post-burn rehabilitation requires an understanding of a wide range of complications to maximize functional recovery. This article reviews a range of potential challenges including burn scar contracture, amputation, peripheral nerve injury, heterotopic ossification, dysphagia, altered skin physiology, pain, and pruritis. The overall focus is to serve as a guide for post-injury therapy and rehabilitation spanning the phases of care and considering evidence-based approaches, prevention, and treatment with an ultimate goal of aiding in the functional recovery and long-term quality of life for burn survivors.

Physical Management of Scar Tissue: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to describe the status on the effects of physical scar treatments on pain, pigmentation, pliability, pruritus, scar thickening, and surface area.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Subjects: Adults with any kind of scar tissue.

Interventions: Physical scar management versus control or no scar management.

Outcome measures: Pain, pigmentation, pliability, pruritus, surface area, scar thickness.

Results: The overall results revealed that physical scar management is beneficial compared with the control treatment regarding the management of pain (p = 0.012), pruritus (p < 0.001), pigmentation (p = 0.010), pliability (p < 0.001), surface area (p < 0.001), and thickness (p = 0.022) of scar tissue in adults. The observed risk of bias was high for blinding of participants and personnel (47%) and low for other bias (100%).

Conclusions: Physical scar management demonstrates moderate-to-strong effects on improvement of scar issues as related to signs and symptoms. These results show the importance of specific physical management of scar tissue.

Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.

METHODS

Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.

RESULTS

147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017060908.

Development of a Postburn Pruritus Relief Protocol

BACKGROUND

Postburn pruritus is a syndrome of stressful symptoms that is pervasive and occurs in over 90% of burn patients and continues for years after the burn has healed. Postburn pruritus is experienced by burn survivors that may require medical management and effective interventions.

PURPOSE

This article shows how to effectively relieve postburn pruritus by developing a postburn pruritus relief protocol.

DESIGN

A descriptive literature review was conducted, and relevant empirical articles written during the years 2000-2014 were appraised to create a postburn pruritus relief protocol. Twenty-six of 79 articles were selected using preestablished inclusion criteria: any age group experiencing burn-related pruritus after second- or third-degree burns. Databases were Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and the American Burn Association website.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol included both nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions that have been delineated for use and was developed to apply based on the healing stage: prehealing, healing, and posthealing.

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Abnormal scar development following burn injury can cause substantial physical and psychological distress to children and their families. Common burn scar prevention and management techniques include silicone therapy, pressure garment therapy, or a combination of both. Currently, no definitive, high-quality evidence is available for the effectiveness of topical silicone gel or pressure garment therapy for the prevention and management of burn scars in the paediatric population. Thus, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of these treatments in children.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial will be conducted at a large tertiary metropolitan children's hospital in Australia. Participants will be randomised to one of three groups: Strataderm® topical silicone gel only, pressure garment therapy only, or combined Strataderm® topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy. Participants will include 135 children (45 per group) up to 16 years of age who are referred for scar management for a new burn. Children up to 18 years of age will also be recruited following surgery for burn scar reconstruction. Primary outcomes are scar itch intensity and scar thickness. Secondary outcomes include scar characteristics (e.g. colour, pigmentation, pliability, pain), the patient's, caregiver's and therapist's overall opinion of the scar, health service costs, adherence, health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction and adverse effects. Measures will be completed on up to two sites per person at baseline and 1 week post scar management commencement, 3 months and 6 months post burn, or post burn scar reconstruction. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study will determine the effectiveness of three noninvasive scar interventions in children at risk of, and with, scarring post burn or post reconstruction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001100482 . Registered on 5 August 2016.

The effects of conservative treatments on burn scars: A systematic review

A variety of conservative treatments for burn scars are available, but there is no clear consensus on the evidence. The purpose of this study was to summarize the available literature on the effects of conservative treatments of burn scars in adults. RCTs and CCTs were sought in three databases, reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant reviews. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network scoring system was used to assess the quality of the selected studies. Information on the study characteristics, results and interventions was extracted. Twenty-two articles were included into the review and categorized in six topics: 5 on massage therapy, 4 on pressure therapy, 6 on silicone gel application, 3 on combined therapy of pressure and silicone, 3 on hydration and 1 on ultrasound. Pressure and silicone therapy are evidence-based conservative treatments of hypertrophic scar formation after a burn producing clinically relevant improvement of scar thickness, redness and pliability. Massage therapy could have a positive result on scar pliability, pain and pruritus, but with less supporting evidence. The use of moisturizers and lotions could have an effect on itching, but the findings are contradictory. Of all other non-invasive treatments such as splinting, casting, physical activity, exercise and mobilizations no RCTs or CCTs were found.

Protein degradation and protection observed in the presence of novel wound dressing components

Chronic wounds typically have excessive levels of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and proinflammatory cytokines that impair healing. Reducing these detrimental proteins may be key to healing chronic wounds. Proprietary protease blends were formulated specifically to degrade excessive amounts of proinflammatory factors that could prevent wound healing. Applications of protease-containing wound dressings to acute and chronic wounds have been observed clinically to resolve inflammation and appear to aid healing. The purpose of this study was to test in vitro a deliberate blend of proteases for the ability to deactivate or activate known proteins associated with inflammation or healing. Purified human target proteins were incubated with test and control solutions and samples removed at various time points. Blinded samples were tested using a novel infrared protein multiplex sandwich-ELISA-type array technique. Many proinflammatory proteins such as MMPs, cytokines and chemokines were susceptible to degradation. Many proteins such as growth factors, cytokines and TIMP1 were resistant to degradation. Not all proinflammatory proteins were deactivated. Family protein structure did not appear to affect susceptibility to degradation or deactivation. These results suggest that specific protease containing wound dressings appear to reduce multiple detrimental components which may disrupt their deleterious effects on the wound bed and microenvironment. By improving the wound microenvironment through the use of definitive proteases, these novel wound dressings may help transition wounds into the subsequent phase of healing.