Cheryl B Bayart1,2, Joan E Tamburro1,2, Allison T Vidimos1, Lu Wang3, Alex B Golden4. 1. Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Cardiology, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Hartford, Connecticut.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The nonselective beta-blocker propranolol is the current criterion standard for treatment of infantile hemangiomas (IHs) and the first therapy that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved for the condition, but concern about adverse effects, such as bronchospasm, hypoglycemia, and sleep disturbances, has sparked interest in the use of alternative agents such as the selective β1 antagonist atenolol. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of atenolol with those of propranolol in the treatment of IHs in a retrospective noninferiority trial. METHODS: Twenty-seven children with IHs treated with atenolol according to the Cleveland Clinic foundation's standardized clinical assessment and management plan (SCAMP) met inclusion criteria and were compared with a matched group of 53 children with IHs treated with propranolol. Three reviewers assessed response to therapy using a modified version of the previously validated Hemangioma Activity Score (HAS). RESULTS: The mean change in HAS was -2.94 ± 1.20 for patients treated with atenolol and -2.96 ± 1.42 for those treated with propranolol. There was no statistically significant difference in pre- and posttreatment modified HAS scores between the two groups (p = 0.60). There was no significant difference in the overall rate of adverse effects (p = 0.10), although 11% of patients treated with propranolol experienced reactive airway symptoms, whereas this was not seen in any of the patients treated with atenolol. CONCLUSION: Our study supports previous findings that atenolol is at least as effective as propranolol for treatment of IHs and poses less risk of bronchospasm. Our SCAMP proposes guidelines for dosing and monitoring parameters.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The nonselective beta-blocker propranolol is the current criterion standard for treatment of infantile hemangiomas (IHs) and the first therapy that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved for the condition, but concern about adverse effects, such as bronchospasm, hypoglycemia, and sleep disturbances, has sparked interest in the use of alternative agents such as the selective β1 antagonist atenolol. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of atenolol with those of propranolol in the treatment of IHs in a retrospective noninferiority trial. METHODS: Twenty-seven children with IHs treated with atenolol according to the Cleveland Clinic foundation's standardized clinical assessment and management plan (SCAMP) met inclusion criteria and were compared with a matched group of 53 children with IHs treated with propranolol. Three reviewers assessed response to therapy using a modified version of the previously validated Hemangioma Activity Score (HAS). RESULTS: The mean change in HAS was -2.94 ± 1.20 for patients treated with atenolol and -2.96 ± 1.42 for those treated with propranolol. There was no statistically significant difference in pre- and posttreatment modified HAS scores between the two groups (p = 0.60). There was no significant difference in the overall rate of adverse effects (p = 0.10), although 11% of patients treated with propranolol experienced reactive airway symptoms, whereas this was not seen in any of the patients treated with atenolol. CONCLUSION: Our study supports previous findings that atenolol is at least as effective as propranolol for treatment of IHs and poses less risk of bronchospasm. Our SCAMP proposes guidelines for dosing and monitoring parameters.
Authors: Caroline T Seebauer; Matthew S Graus; Lan Huang; Alex McCann; Jill Wylie-Sears; Frank Fontaine; Tara Karnezis; David Zurakowski; Steven J Staffa; Frédéric Meunier; John B Mulliken; Joyce Bischoff; Mathias Francois Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 14.808