A retrospective analysis of mortality risk and immunosuppressive therapy for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome using the TriNetX research network.

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) exist on a spectrum of autoimmune conditions which cause epidermal detachment and keratinocyte necrosis. Due to the rare incidence of these conditions, a dramatic heterogeneity in treatment algorithms exists. To better appreciate pharmacologic immunosuppressive therapies' impact on survival, the authors queried a multi-institutional data network. Data for this study was extracted from TriNetX Research Network, a platform that contains ICD-9/ICD-10 coding data from a consortium of international healthcare organizations. Seventy-one institutions were queried to identify adult patients diagnosed with SJS, TEN or SJS-TEN Overlap. Cohorts were created based on the therapy received: systemic steroids (SS), diphenhydramine (DH), cyclosporine (CS), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFαi), or a combination of treatments. Cohorts were then propensity matched with patients who received supportive care. Patients who only received one of the above treatments showed no significant reduction in 90-day mortality. Patients who received CS or IVIG as part of their multitherapy showed a significantly increased risk of death when compared to supportive care (CS: RR = 1.583, 95% CI [1.119, 2.240]; IVIG: RR = 2.132, 95% CI [1.485, 3.059]). Despite their frequent utilization, this study's analysis suggests that none of these therapies confer significant 90-day mortality survival over supportive care alone. These results highlight the heterogeneity of therapies and emphasize the need for critical prospective appraisal of their outcomes in SJS and TEN.

A Narrative Review of the History of Burn-Related Depression and Stress Reactions.

While the roots of burn care date back several millennia, recognition and treatment of psychiatric trauma has had a more contemporary journey. Our understanding of burn care has evolved largely separately from our understanding of psychiatry; however, proper care of the burn patient relies on the comprehension of both disciplines. Historically, high burn mortality rates have caused clinicians to focus on the physiological causes of burn mortality. As burn care improved in the 20th century, providers began to focus on the long-term health outcomes of burn patients, including mitigating mental health consequences of trauma. This shift coincided with advances in our understanding of psychological sequelae of trauma. Subsequently, an association between burn trauma and mental illness began to emerge. The current standard of care is the result of thousands of years of evolving practices and theories, yet our understanding of the pathophysiology of depression among survivors of severe burn injury is far from complete. By taking measure of the past, we aim to provide context and evidence for our current standards and emphasize areas for future lines of research.