Cited by 108Burn Injury Management and OutcomesClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyWound Healing and Treatments

A randomized trial of enteral glutamine for treatment of burn injuries

Open access
Heyland, Daren K., Wibbenmeyer, Lucy, Pollack, Jonathan, Friedman, Bruce, Turgeon, Alexis F., Eshraghi, Niknam, Jeschke, Marc G., Bélisle, Sylvain +16 more·2022·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is thought to have beneficial effects on the metabolic and stress response to severe injury. Clinical trials involving patients with burns and other critically ill patients have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits and risks of glutamine supplementation. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with deep second- or third-degree burns (affecting ≥10% to ≥20% of total body-surface area, depending on age) within 72 hours after hospital admission to receive 0.5 g per kilogram of body weight per day of enterally delivered glutamine or placebo. Trial agents were given every 4 hours through a feeding tube or three or four times a day by mouth until 7 days after the last skin grafting procedure, discharge from the acute care unit, or 3 months after admission, whichever came first. The primary outcome was the time to discharge alive from the hospital, with data censored at 90 days. We calculated subdistribution hazard ratios for discharge alive, which took into account death as a competing risk. RESULTS: A total of 1209 patients with severe burns (mean burn size, 33% of total body-surface area) underwent randomization, and 1200 were included in the analysis (596 patients in the glutamine group and 604 in the placebo group). The median time to discharge alive from the hospital was 40 days (interquartile range, 24 to 87) in the glutamine group and 38 days (interquartile range, 22 to 75) in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio for discharge alive, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Mortality at 6 months was 17.2% in the glutamine group and 16.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.41). No substantial between-group differences in serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe burns, supplemental glutamine did not reduce the time to discharge alive from the hospital. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; RE-ENERGIZE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00985205.).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa2203364

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heyland, D. K., Wibbenmeyer, L., Pollack, J., Friedman, B., Turgeon, A. F., Eshraghi, N., Jeschke, M. G., Bélisle, S., Grau, D., Mandell, S., Velamuri, S. R., Hundeshagen, G., Moiemen, N., Shokrollahi, K., Foster, K., Huss, F., Collins, D., Savetamal, A., Gurney, J. M., Depetris, N., Stoppe, C., Ortiz-Reyes, L., Garrel, D., & Day, A. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Uppsala University Hospital (SE)
  • From the Clinical Evaluation Research Unit (D.K.H., L.O.-R.) and the Research Institute (A.G.D.), Kingston Health Sciences Centre, and the Departments of Critical Care Medicine (D.K.H., L.O.R.) and Public Health Sciences (D.K.H.), Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, the Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, and the Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Unit (Trauma–Emergency–Critical Care Medicine) and the Canada Research Chair in Critical Care Neurology and Trauma, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec–Université Laval Research Center, Quebec, QC (A.F.T.), the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Immunology, and Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Ross Tilley Burn Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto (M.G.J.), and the Departments of Medicine and Anesthesiology (S.B.) and the Department of Nutrition, Faculty ...
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2022-09-15
Volume
387
Issue
11
Pages
1001-1010
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W4295079369
Cited by
108
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 3
FWCI
15.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense (W81XWH-09-2-0194)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (137117, 142388)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
Keywords
glutamine supplementation, enteral nutrition, burns, severe burns, hospital discharge, mortality, critically ill patients, nutritional support, competing risk analysis
MeSH terms
Burns, Canada, Double-Blind Method, Enteral Nutrition, Glutamine, Humans, Critical Illness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review