MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394992422 · doi:10.1093/burnst/tkad063

Administration and effects of beta blockers and oxandrolone in severely burned adults: a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of the RE-ENERGIZE trial

2024· article· en· W4394992422 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabriel Hundeshagen, Elisabeth Blears, Viktoria Mertin, Andrew G. Day, Alen Palackic, Christian Tapking, Valentin Haug, Ulrich Kneser, Björn Bliesener, Adriana C. Panayi, Ariel Aballay, François Dépret, Christian Stoppe, Daren K. Heyland

Bibliographic record

VenueBurns & Trauma · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityKingston Health Sciences Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineOxandroloneInternal medicineHypermetabolismRandomized controlled trialHazard ratioPopulationPediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Prospective randomized trials in severely burned children have shown the positive effects of oxandrolone (OX), beta blockers (BB) and a combination of the two (BBOX) on hypermetabolism, catabolism and hyperinflammation short- and long-term post-burn. Although data on severely burned adults are lacking in comparison, BB, OX and BBOX appear to be commonly employed in this patient population. In this study, we perform a secondary analysis of an international prospective randomized trial dataset to provide descriptive evidence regarding the current utilization patterns and potential treatment effects of OX, BB and BBOX. Methods The RE-ENERGIZE (RandomizEd Trial of ENtERal Glutamine to minimIZE Thermal Injury, NCT00985205) trial included 1200 adult patients with severe burns. We stratified patients according to their receipt of OX, BB, BBOX or none of these drugs (None) during acute hospitalization. Descriptive statistics describe the details of drug therapy and unadjusted analyses identify predisposing factors for drug use per group. Association between OX, BB and BBOX and clinical outcomes such as time to discharge alive and 6-month mortality were modeled using adjusted multivariable Cox regressions. Results More than half of all patients in the trial received either OX (n = 138), BB (n = 293) or BBOX (n = 282), as opposed to None (n = 487, 40.6%). Per study site and geographical region, use of OX, BB and BBOX was highly variable. Predisposing factors for the use of OX, BB and BBOX included larger total body surface area (TBSA) burned, higher acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II scores on admission and younger patient age. After adjustment for multiple covariates, the use of OX was associated with a longer time to discharge alive [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, confidence interval (CI) (0.47–0.82) per 100% increase, p = 0.001]. A higher proportion of days on BB was associated with lower in-hospital-mortality (HR: 0.5, CI 0.28–0.87, p = 0.015) and 6-month mortality (HR: 0.44, CI 0.24–0.82, p = 0.01). Conclusions The use of OX, BB and BBOX is common within the adult burn patient population, with its use varying considerably across sites worldwide. Our findings found mixed associations between outcomes and the use of BB and OX in adult burn patients, with lower acute and 6-month-mortality with BB and longer times to discharge with OX. Further research into these pharmacological modulators of the pathophysiological response to severe burn injury is indicated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBurns & TraumaSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207