4.5 Review

The effectiveness of propranolol in treating infantile haemangiomas: a meta-analysis including 35 studies

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 1, Pages 44-57

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12235

Keywords

effectiveness; infantile haemangiomas; meta-analysis; propranolol

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Propranolol may have shown excellent results as a first line therapy in infantile haemangiomas (IHs) at all sites in the body, but this conclusion remains controversial. In an attempt to resolve this issue, we performed a meta-analysis. Methods A search of the literature using PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library databases and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) was performed to identify studies which estimated the efficacy of propranolol therapy in infants with haemangiomas all sites of the body. The pooled odds ratio (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed using a fixed effects model. Results Thirty-five studies involving 324 infantile haemangioma(IH) patients and 248 controls were retrieved and analyzed. The efficacy of propranolol was greater than other therapies in treating IHs (OR = 9.67, 95% CI 6.62, 14.12, P < 0.001). In a stratified analysis by sites of tumour, propranolol was a more effective therapy when compared with steroids (OR = 9.67, 95% CI 6.61, 14.15, P < 0.001), vincristine (OR = 9.00, 95% CI 2.15, 37.66, P = 0.003) and laser treatment (OR = 9.00, 95% CI 1.42, 57.12, P = 0.020) in treating cutaneous IHs (OR = 24.95, 95% CI 9.48, 65.64, P < 0.001), peri-ocular IHs (OR = 9.39, 95% CI 3.88, 22.71, P < 0.001), infantile airway haemangiomas (OR = 20.91, 95% CI 7.81, 55.96, P < 0.001) and infantile hepatic haemangiomas (OR = 9.89, 95% CI 1.20, 81.54, P = 0.033). Conclusion The current meta-analysis provided strong evidence for propranolol as a first line therapy for IHs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available