A randomized trial of enteral glutamine for treatment of burn injuries
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The largest RCT revealed no benefit from GLN supplementation in burns.
“but is challenged by the largest RCT revealing no benefit from GLN supplementation in burns [79].”
From ESPEN practical and partially revised guideline: Clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit (2023) · cites this paper as [79]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESPEN practical and partially revised guideline: Clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit
Singer, P., Blaser, A. R., Berger, M. M., Calder, P. C., Casaer, M., Hiesmayr, M., Mayer, K., Montejo-Gonzalez, J. C., Pichard, C., Preiser, J.-C., et al. (2023) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2023.07.011 · Cited by 793 · see citing works
- 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 ...
- ORCID
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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