Burn injury induces a complex inflammatory response, both locally and systemically, and is not yet completely unravelled and understood. In order to enable the development of accurate treatment options, it is of paramount importance to fully understand post-burn immunology. Research in the last decades describes insights into the prolonged and excessive inflammatory response that could exist after both severe and milder burn trauma and that this response differs from that of none-burn acute trauma. Persistent activity of complement, acute phase proteins and pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators, changes in lymphocyte activity, activation of the stress response and infiltration of immune cells have all been related to post-burn local and systemic pathology. This “narrative” review explores the current state of knowledge, focusing on both the local and systemic immunology post-burn, and further questions how it is linked to the clinical outcome. Moreover, it illustrates the complexity of post-burn immunology and the existing gaps in knowledge on underlying mechanisms of burn pathology.

Early mobilization (EM) of intensive care (IC) patients is important but complex with facilitators and barriers. Compared to general IC patients, burn IC patients are more hyper-metabolic. They have extensive wounds, lengthy wound dressing changes, and repeated surgeries that may affect possibilities of EM. This study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers of EM in burn IC patients among all disciplines involved. Additionally, we assessed EM practices, i.e. when are which patients considered suitable for EM. A survey was sent to 139 professionals involved in EM of burn IC patients (discipline groups: Intensivists, medical doctors, registered nurses, therapists). Response rate was 57 %. The majority found EM very important, yet different definitions were chosen. Perceived barriers mainly concerned patient-level factors, most frequently hemodynamic instability and excessive sedation followed by skin graft surgery, fatigue, and pain management. Most frequent barriers at the provider-level were limited staffing, safety concerns, and conflicting perceptions about the suitability of EM. At the institutional-level, we found no high barriers. Interdisciplinary variation on perceived barriers, when to initiate it, and permitted maximal activity were ascertained. Skin grafts and pain management were barriers of EM specific for burn care. Opinions on frequency, dosage and duration of EM varied widely. Improving interdisciplinary communication is key.

Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) might be used to optimize antibiotic treatment. Procalcitonin (PCT) is a biomarker for severity of infection and response to antibiotic treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of MIPD on the course of PCT and to investigate the association of PCT with pharmacodynamic target (PDT) attainment in critically ill patients. This is a secondary analysis of the DOLPHIN trial, a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Patients with a PCT value available at day 1 (T1), day 3 (T3), or day 5 (T5) after randomisation were included. The primary outcome was the absolute difference in PCT concentration at T1, T3, and T5 between the MIPD and the standard dosing group. In total, 662 PCT concentrations from 351 critically ill patients were analysed. There was no statistically significant difference in PCT concentration between the trial arms at T1, T3, or T5. The median PCT concentration was highest in patients who exceeded 10× PDT at T1 [13.15 ng/mL (IQR 5.43–22.75)]. In 28-day non-survivors and in patients that exceeded PDT at T1, PCT decreased significantly between T1 and T3, but plateaued between T3 and T5. PCT concentrations were not significantly different between patients receiving antibiotic treatment with or without MIPD guidance. The potential of PCT to guide antibiotic dosing merits further investigation.

Background: Efforts to identify therapies to treat hospitalised patients with COVID-19 are being continued. Alkaline phosphatase (AP) dephosphorylates pro-inflammatory adenosine triphosphate (ATP) into anti-inflammatory adenosine. Methods: In a randomised controlled trial, we investigated the safety and efficacy of AP in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the ICU. AP or a placebo was administered for four days following admission to the ICU. The primary outcome was the duration of mechanical ventilation. Mortality in 28 days, acute kidney injury, need for reintubation, safety, and inflammatory markers relevant to the described high cytokine release associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were the secondary outcomes. Results: Between December 2020 and March 2022, 97 patients (of the intended 132) were included, of which 51 were randomised to AP. The trial was terminated prematurely based on meeting the threshold for futility. Compared to the placebo, AP did not affect the duration of mechanical ventilation (9.0 days vs. 9.3 days, p = 1.0). No safety issues were observed. After 28 days, mortality was 9 (18%) in the AP group versus 6 (13%) in the placebo group (p = 0.531). Additionally, no statistically significant differences between the AP and the placebo were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Alkaline phosphatase (AP) therapy in COVID-19 ICU patients showed no significant benefits in this trial.