Hao Yang1,2, Dong-Lai Hu1, Qiang Shu2, Xiao-Dong Guo3. 1. Department of Pediatrics Surgery, Jinhua Central Hospital, No. 365 Renmindong Road, Wucheng District, Jinhua, 321000, China. 2. Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No. 3333 Binsheng Road, Binjiang District, Hangzhou, 310052, China. 3. Department of Pediatrics Surgery, Jinhua Central Hospital, No. 365 Renmindong Road, Wucheng District, Jinhua, 321000, China. guoxiaodong@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of clinical trials evaluated the efficacy and adverse effects of oral propranolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma (IH), but the treatment has not yet been standardized. This meta-analysis aims to reevaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of oral propranolol in comparative studies and to provide a reliable basis for clinical administration in the therapy for IH. METHODS: Data were obtained from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang database, from inception to December 1st, 2018. The pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and used to evaluate the effect size. The meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model due to heterogeneity between the studies. The Cochrane Collaboration 6 aspects of bias, methodological index for non-randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk for bias. Sensitivity analysis, publication bias and subgroup analysis were performed. RESULTS: Eighteen unique studies involving 2701 unique children were included in the analysis. The response rate was reported in 18 trials, which compared oral propranolol with other treatments. The heterogeneity was statistically significant (P < 0.00001, I2 = 95%). The difference in the response rate was statistically significant (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.75) while compared with the controls. However, no significant difference in the adverse events rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.34) and relapse rate (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 0.66-3.16) were found. Otherwise, the subgroup analysis indicated that the RR was 1.64 (95% CI 0.24-11.36) for low-dose propranolol (1 mg/kg/day), 1.42 (95% CI 1.12-1.80) for medium dose (2 mg/kg/day) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.17-1.82) for high dose (3 mg/kg/day), but the high dose had higher adverse events rate than medium dose, with 3.60% and 86.22%, respectively. The effectiveness of propranolol therapy among cases of treatment duration less than 6 months (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.47) was inferior to that of treatment duration greater than or equal to 6 months (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.11-1.92). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis reveals that oral propranolol is superior to other treatments in improving response rate of IH and can be used as the first-line therapy for IH children. A dosage of 2 mg/kg/day propranolol orally may be a good choice for IH. However, further studies are essential.
BACKGROUND: A number of clinical trials evaluated the efficacy and adverse effects of oral propranolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma (IH), but the treatment has not yet been standardized. This meta-analysis aims to reevaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of oral propranolol in comparative studies and to provide a reliable basis for clinical administration in the therapy for IH. METHODS: Data were obtained from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang database, from inception to December 1st, 2018. The pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and used to evaluate the effect size. The meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model due to heterogeneity between the studies. The Cochrane Collaboration 6 aspects of bias, methodological index for non-randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk for bias. Sensitivity analysis, publication bias and subgroup analysis were performed. RESULTS: Eighteen unique studies involving 2701 unique children were included in the analysis. The response rate was reported in 18 trials, which compared oral propranolol with other treatments. The heterogeneity was statistically significant (P < 0.00001, I2 = 95%). The difference in the response rate was statistically significant (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.75) while compared with the controls. However, no significant difference in the adverse events rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.34) and relapse rate (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 0.66-3.16) were found. Otherwise, the subgroup analysis indicated that the RR was 1.64 (95% CI 0.24-11.36) for low-dose propranolol (1 mg/kg/day), 1.42 (95% CI 1.12-1.80) for medium dose (2 mg/kg/day) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.17-1.82) for high dose (3 mg/kg/day), but the high dose had higher adverse events rate than medium dose, with 3.60% and 86.22%, respectively. The effectiveness of propranolol therapy among cases of treatment duration less than 6 months (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.47) was inferior to that of treatment duration greater than or equal to 6 months (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.11-1.92). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis reveals that oral propranolol is superior to other treatments in improving response rate of IH and can be used as the first-line therapy for IH children. A dosage of 2 mg/kg/day propranolol orally may be a good choice for IH. However, further studies are essential.
Authors: Cynthia J Price; Carol Lattouf; Bertha Baum; Michael McLeod; Lawrence A Schachner; Ana M Duarte; Elizabeth Alvarez Connelly Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2011-08-15
Authors: Anita N Haggstrom; Beth A Drolet; Eulalia Baselga; Sarah L Chamlin; Maria C Garzon; Kimberly A Horii; Anne W Lucky; Anthony J Mancini; Denise W Metry; Brandon Newell; Amy J Nopper; Ilona J Frieden Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Sivakumar Chinnadurai; Christopher Fonnesbeck; Kristen M Snyder; Nila A Sathe; Anna Morad; Frances E Likis; Melissa L McPheeters Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: A Munden; R Butschek; W L Tom; J S Marshall; D M Poeltler; S E Krohne; A B Alió; M Ritter; D F Friedlander; V Catanzarite; A Mendoza; L Smith; M Friedlander; S F Friedlander Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 9.302