Celecoxib to improve scar quality following acute burn injury: Lessons learned after premature termination of a randomised trial

Edward Raby , Paul Gittings , Edward Litton , Aaron Berghuber , Dale Wesley Edgar , Jo Camilleri , Kris Owen , Rosemary Kendell , Laurens Manning , Mark Fear , Fiona Melanie Wood
{"title":"Celecoxib to improve scar quality following acute burn injury: Lessons learned after premature termination of a randomised trial","authors":"Edward Raby ,&nbsp;Paul Gittings ,&nbsp;Edward Litton ,&nbsp;Aaron Berghuber ,&nbsp;Dale Wesley Edgar ,&nbsp;Jo Camilleri ,&nbsp;Kris Owen ,&nbsp;Rosemary Kendell ,&nbsp;Laurens Manning ,&nbsp;Mark Fear ,&nbsp;Fiona Melanie Wood","doi":"10.1016/j.burnso.2024.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Pre-clinical studies suggest that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapy may reduce acute inflammation and modulate scar formation after burn injury. The objective of this trial was to determine if celecoxib administered soon after acute burn improved scar quality.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A single centre, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised, superiority trial. Adults with non-major acute burn injury were eligible for recruitment. Participants within 48 h of admission for acute burn injury received either six weeks of celecoxib 200 mg twice daily or identically packaged placebo capsules. The primary outcome was participant-reported Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at day 42 following burn injury. The best possible score using this assessment is 7 and the worst 70. Key safety outcomes included study drug side effects.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in slow recruitment and early termination after 59 of the 150 planned participants were enrolled. The primary outcome was available for 21/30 (70 %) participants in the celecoxib arm and for 23/29 (79 %) who received placebo. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between treatment groups with a mean POSAS of 33.4 (standard deviation 12.7) in the celecoxib arm and 36.9 (13.7) in the control arm giving a difference of −3.49 (95 % CI [-11.57, 4.59], <em>p</em> =.39). Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in 3/30 (10 %) allocated celecoxib and in none allocated placebo. Secondary outcomes including graft loss and delayed healing were similar between groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Anti-inflammatory therapy did not improve scar quality. Due to early trial termination and significant loss to follow up these findings should be interpreted cautiously. To improve generalisability and to attain recruitment targets, future trials should apply different approaches to improve participant retention as well as including patients with larger burn injuries and an older population.</p><p>Trial registration: ACTRN12618000732280.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72486,"journal":{"name":"Burns open : an international open access journal for burn injuries","volume":"8 2","pages":"Pages 128-135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912224000191/pdfft?md5=94392e503be34bb4014409c0c61a626f&pid=1-s2.0-S2468912224000191-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Burns open : an international open access journal for burn injuries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912224000191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Pre-clinical studies suggest that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapy may reduce acute inflammation and modulate scar formation after burn injury. The objective of this trial was to determine if celecoxib administered soon after acute burn improved scar quality.

Methods

A single centre, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised, superiority trial. Adults with non-major acute burn injury were eligible for recruitment. Participants within 48 h of admission for acute burn injury received either six weeks of celecoxib 200 mg twice daily or identically packaged placebo capsules. The primary outcome was participant-reported Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at day 42 following burn injury. The best possible score using this assessment is 7 and the worst 70. Key safety outcomes included study drug side effects.

Results

Restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in slow recruitment and early termination after 59 of the 150 planned participants were enrolled. The primary outcome was available for 21/30 (70 %) participants in the celecoxib arm and for 23/29 (79 %) who received placebo. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between treatment groups with a mean POSAS of 33.4 (standard deviation 12.7) in the celecoxib arm and 36.9 (13.7) in the control arm giving a difference of −3.49 (95 % CI [-11.57, 4.59], p =.39). Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in 3/30 (10 %) allocated celecoxib and in none allocated placebo. Secondary outcomes including graft loss and delayed healing were similar between groups.

Conclusions

Anti-inflammatory therapy did not improve scar quality. Due to early trial termination and significant loss to follow up these findings should be interpreted cautiously. To improve generalisability and to attain recruitment targets, future trials should apply different approaches to improve participant retention as well as including patients with larger burn injuries and an older population.

Trial registration: ACTRN12618000732280.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用塞来昔布改善急性烧伤后的疤痕质量:随机试验提前终止后的经验教训
背景临床前研究表明,非类固醇抗炎疗法可减轻急性炎症并调节烧伤后疤痕的形成。本试验的目的是确定在急性烧伤后不久服用塞来昔布是否能改善疤痕质量。受试者为非大面积急性烧伤的成人。急性烧伤入院48小时内的参与者接受为期六周的塞来昔布治疗,每次200毫克,每天两次,或服用包装相同的安慰剂胶囊。主要研究结果是烧伤后第42天参与者报告的患者观察者疤痕评估量表(POSAS)。该量表的最佳评分为 7 分,最差评分为 70 分。主要安全性结果包括研究药物的副作用。结果COVID-19大流行期间实施的限制措施导致招募工作进展缓慢,在计划招募的150名参与者中,有59名被提前终止招募。21/30(70%)名接受塞来昔布治疗的参与者和23/29(79%)名接受安慰剂治疗的参与者获得了主要结果。塞来昔布治疗组的平均POSAS值为33.4(标准差为12.7),对照组为36.9(标准差为13.7),差异为-3.49(95 % CI [-11.57, 4.59],P =0.39)。3/30(10%)接受塞来昔布治疗的患者出现胃肠道症状,没有接受安慰剂治疗的患者出现胃肠道症状。包括移植物损失和延迟愈合在内的次要结果在各组之间相似。由于试验提前结束,且随访中损失惨重,因此应谨慎解释这些结果。为了提高普遍性并达到招募目标,未来的试验应采用不同的方法来提高参与者的保留率,并纳入烧伤面积较大的患者和老年人群:ACTRN12618000732280。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Successful recovery of 85% TBSA burns in a resource-limited Nigerian hospital without a burns ward or intensive care unit: A case report Third-degree nasal tip burn in a preterm infant treated with amniotic membrane (Case report) A novel non-invasive treatment in deep burned patients who do not have consent to surgery How can mathematics be used to improve burn care? Benefits of the use of porcine skin for the management of toxic epidermal necrolysis injuries: Review of the literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1