The Efficacy of Glutamine Supplementation in Severe Adult Burn Patients: A Systematic Review With Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis

Glutamine Supplementation on Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To evaluate the effect of glutamine supplement on patients with burns, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis via synthesizing up-to-date studies. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, EMBASE, Google scholar, Wanfang data, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to October 2023 to find randomized trials evaluating glutamine supplement on patients with burns. The main outcomes included hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, infection, and wound healing. Twenty-two trials that randomized a total of 2170 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled the length of hospital stay was shortened by glutamine supplement (weighted mean differences [WMD] = -7.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.53 to -5.36, I2 = 67.9%, 16 trials). Both pooled wound healing rates (WMD = 9.15, 95% CI 6.30 to 12.01, I2 = 82.7%, 6 studies) and wound healing times (WMD = -5.84, 95% CI -7.42 to -4.27, I2 = 45.7%, 7 studies) were improved by glutamine supplement. Moreover, glutamine supplement reduced wound infection (risk ratios [RR] = 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.69, I2 = 0%, 3 trials), but not nonwound infection (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05, I2 = 39.6%, 9 trials). Neither in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.22, I2 = 36.0%, 8 trials) nor the length of intensive care unit stay (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI -7.24 to 10.93, I2 = 78.2%, 5 studies) was improved by glutamine supplement. Subgroup analysis showed positive effects were either influenced by or based on small-scale, single-center studies. Based on the current available data, we do not recommend the routine use of glutamine supplement for burn patients in hospital. Future large-scale randomized trials are still needed to give a conclusion about the effect of glutamine supplement on burn patients.

Highlights in the clinical nutrition literature: A critical appraisal of current research

Within the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the Physician Engagement Committee (PEC) was created in 2017 by the ASPEN Board of Directors with the goal of growing the physician community both nationally and internationally. The PEC meets each month throughout the year to develop educational and research initiatives. In 2022, the PEC began an initiative to systematically review and evaluate practice-changing literature annually with the overall aim to highlight these studies at the annual ASPEN conferences and to critically discuss the potential clinical implications. The objective of the held meeting session was to present identified key papers in the fields of critical care medicine, gastroenterology and hepatology, and adult internal medicine that were published in 2022, which would complement the knowledge of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of nutrition topics as well as to identify areas of future research. Overall, several large-scale randomized controlled studies were identified in each of these sections, with practice-changing major results. This manuscript summarizes the information that was presented and the discussions that followed.

Glutamine enteral therapy for critically ill adult patients: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of supplemental enteral glutamine (GLN) in critical illness patients remains uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

Based on a recently published large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as regards the use of enteral GLN, we updated a meta-analysis of RCTs for further investigating the effects of enteral GLN administration in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched RCTs reporting the impact of supplemental enteral GLN about clinical outcomes in adult critical illness patients from EMBASE, PubMed, Clinical Trials.gov, Scopus and Web of Science and subsequently registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42023399770). RCTs of combined enteral-parenteral GLN or parenteral GLN only were excluded. Hospital mortality was designated as the primary outcome. We conducted subgroup analyses of primary outcome based on specific patient populations, dosages and therapy regimens, and further performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) for clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs involving 2552 adult critically ill patients were identified. There were no remarkable influences on hospital mortality regardless of different subgroups (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.30; p = 0.67), intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) (MD, -0.07; 95% CI, -1.12 - 0.98; p = 0.89) and infectious complications (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75-1.10; p = 0.31) with enteral GLN supplementation. Additionally, the results of hospital mortality were confirmed by TSA. However, enteral GLN therapy was related to a reduction of hospital LOS (MD, -2.85; 95% CI, -5.27 to -0.43; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, it seems that enteral GLN supplementation is unlikely ameliorate clinical outcomes in critical illness patients except for the reduction of hospital LOS. Our data do not support enteral GLN supplementation used routinely in critical illness patients.