Burn are diverse and complex injuries that not only have local effects but also serious systemic consequences through severe and prolonged inflammatory response. They are caused by heat, electricity, friction, chemicals, or radiation and are commonly divided into superficial, superficial partial-, deep partial- and full-thickness injuries. The severity of the burn depends mainly on the size and depth of the injury but also on location, age, and underlying systemic diseases. A prolonged and strong immune response makes major burns even worse by causing multiple systemic effects including damage to the heart, lungs, blood vessels, kidneys, and other organs. Burns that do not require surgical excision, superficial and superficial partial-thickness, follow the known progression of wound healing (inflammation, proliferation, remodeling), whilst deep partial- and full thickness injuries requiring excision and grafting do not. For these burns, intervention is required for optimal coverage, function, and cosmesis. Annually millions of people worldwide suffer from burns associated with high morbidity and mortality. Fortunately, over the past decades, burn care has significantly improved. The improvement in understanding the pathophysiology of burn injury and burn wound progression has led to developments in skin grafting, fluid resuscitation, infection control and nutrition This review article focuses on the immune and regenerative responses following burn injury. In the Introduction, we describe the epidemiology of burns and burn pathophysiology. The focus of the following chapter is on systemic responses to burn injury. Next, we define the immune response to burns introducing all the different cell types involved. Subsequently, we discuss the regenerative cell response to burns as well as some of the emerging novel treatments in the battle against burns.
Introduction Burns are common injuries on the battlefield. Given austere environments, surgical debridement of injured service members is often not feasible in these settings. Delays in surgical debridement create a risk of infection and deranged healing for burn patients. As such, this study attempts to identify the best commercially available off-the-shelf (OTS) therapies with field-deployable potential to improve prolonged field care (PFC) of burn-injured soldiers. Methods Deep partial-thickness (DPT) burns (25 cm2) were created on the dorsum of 5 anesthetized pigs utilizing a thermocouple burn device at 100°C for 15 seconds. Nonsurgical debridement was done 1-hour after burn creation using sterile saline water and gauze to remove excess eschar tissue. Animals were then randomized into 5 experimental groups, and OTS therapies were applied to 6 of the 12 created DPT burns. The remaining 6 burns were treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine cream (Ascend Laboratories, LLC, Parsippany, NJ) as the PFC standard of care (SOC) controls. The 5 randomized OTS therapies were: irradiated sterile human skin allograft (IHS), biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM), polylactic acid skin substitute, hyaluronic acid ester matrix (HAM), and decellularized fish skin graft (FSG). Wounds were serially assessed on post-burn days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Assessments were conducted using a combination of photographs, histology, and quantitative bacteriology. Endpoints included burn wound progression, re-epithelialization, wound contraction, scar elevation index, and colony-forming units (CFU). Results The analysis demonstrated that by day 3, the FSG prevented burn wound progression the most efficiently. In terms of wound healing, the results showed re-epithelialization percentages close to 100% by day 28 for all treatment groups. No statically significant differences were observed. Quality of healing analyses demonstrated that the BTM-treated wounds had contracted less and the difference to the IHS-treated wounds was statistically significant (P < .05). As regards to antimicrobial properties, the CFU results showed no statistically significant differences between the OTS therapies and the SOC on days 3, 7, and 14. Conclusions The impact of Food and Drug Administration-approved OTS therapies was compared to the current PFC SOC for the treatment of DPT burns in a porcine model. Several topical options exist for the management of burns prior to definitive treatment in the operating room and warrant further evaluation. These therapies are actively used on civilian burn counterparts and have far-forward, field-deployable potential for use at the point of injury so that injured service members may not need evacuation to higher roles of care and combat power may be preserved. Our results demonstrated that all the studied OTS therapies performed well when compared to the SOC in terms of burn wound progression, wound healing, quality of healing, and quantitative bacteriology.
BackgroundThe tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is made by ex vivo priming matured autologous dendritic cells (DCs) with yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) loaded with autologous tumor lysate (TL). The tumor lysate, particle only (TLPO) vaccine uses autologous TL-loaded YCWPs coated with silicate for in vivo DC loading. Here we report the 36-month prespecified analyses of this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial investigating the ability of the TLPO and TLPLDC (±granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)) vaccines to prevent melanoma recurrence in high-risk patients.MethodsPatients with clinically disease-free stage III/IV melanoma were randomized 2:1 initially to TLPLDC versus placebo (n=124) and subsequently TLPO versus TLPLDC (n=63). All patients were randomized and blinded; however, the placebo control arm was replaced in the second randomization scheme with another novel vaccine; some analyses in this paper therefore reflect a combination of the two randomization schemes. Patients receiving the TLPLDC vaccine were further divided by their method of DC harvest (with or without G-CSF pretreatment); this was not randomized. The use of standard of care checkpoint inhibitors was not stratified between groups. Safety was assessed and Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses compared disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsAfter combining the two randomization processes, a total of 187 patients were allocated between treatment arms: placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=103), or TLPO (n=43). The allocation among arms created by the addition of patients from the two separate randomization schemes does not reflect concurrent randomization among all treatment arms. TLPLDC was further divided by use of G-CSF in DC harvest: no G-CSF (TLPLDC) (n=47) and with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G) (n=56). Median follow-up was 35.8 months. Only two patients experienced a related adverse event ≥grade 3, one each in the TLPLDC+G and placebo arms. DFS was 27.2% (placebo), 55.4% (TLPLDC), 22.9% (TLPLDC+G), and 60.9% (TLPO) (p<0.001). OS was 62.5% (placebo), 93.6% (TLPLDC), 57.7% (TLPLDC+G), and 94.6% (TLPO) (p=0.002).ConclusionsThe TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines were associated with improved DFS and OS in this clinical trial. Given production and manufacturing advantages, the efficacy of the TLPO vaccine will be confirmed in a phase 3 trial.Trial registration numberNCT02301611.
BackgroundThe tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is an autologous tumor vaccine that decreased recurrence in stage III/IV melanoma when granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was not used to harvest the dendritic cells in a randomized phase 2B adjuvant trial.1The tumor lysate (TL) particle only (TLPO) vaccine utilizes a similar mechanism, but with autologous TL-loaded yeast cell wall particles; this eliminates the need for dendritic cell (DC) collection and ex-vivo loading and reduces production costs and time. The TLPO vaccine was compared to TLPLDC in an embedded bridging portion of the trial. Here, we examine 36-month outcomes of the ongoing randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial in patients (pts) with resected stage III/IV melanoma.MethodsPts were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPO or TLPLDC as a continuation of a previously established clinical trial comparing TLPLDC versus placebo. The TLPLDC group was analyzed separately based on use (or not) of G-CSF for collection of DC. Safety was measured by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis was used to compare 36-month disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) main arms as well as pre-specified subgroups.ResultsA total of 187 pts were randomized with 41, 47, 56, and 43 pts enrolled in the placebo, TLPLDC without G-CSF (TLPLDC), TLPLDC with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G), and TLPO arm, respectively. Pts randomized to the TLPO arm were more likely to have stage IV melanoma (22.0% for placebo, 20.4% for TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G, and 44.2% for TLPO; p = 0.002) and to receive prior immunotherapy (36.6% for placebo, 39.8% for both TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G, and 83.7% for TLPO; p < 0.001). Grade 3+ adverse events were not significantly different between arms. In the ITT analysis, 36-month DFS was 30.0% for placebo, 55.8% for TLPLDC, 24.4% for TLPLDC+G, and 64.0% for TLPO (p < 0.001). OS at 36 months was 70.9% for placebo, 94.2% for TLPLDC, 69.8%% for TLPLDC+G, and 94.8% for TLPO (p = 0.011) (figure 1).Abstract 542 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrating DFS (A) and OS (B) between Placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=47), TLPLDC+G (n=56), and TLPO (n=43)ConclusionsThe TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines improved 36-month DFS and OS in this randomized phase 2 trial. The efficacy of the TLPO and TLPLDC vaccines will be confirmed in a phase III trial in resected Stage III/IV melanoma pts.Trial RegistrationNIH, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02301611ReferencesO’Shea AE, Chick RC, Clifton GT, et al. The effect of pretreatment with G-CSF prior to dendritic cell collection during the phase IIb trial of an autologous DC-based vaccine for advanced, resectable melanoma. Presented at: Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting & Preconference Programs (SITC 2020); November 11–14, 2020. Abstract 310. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(Suppl 3):A656–A959.Ethics ApprovalThe clinical trial protocol was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board (2014–1932). All participants provided informed consent prior to enrollment in the trial.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.