Safety profile of a divided dose of propranolol for heart rate in children with infantile haemangioma during 16 weeks of treatment

Safety of oral propranolol for neonates with problematic infantile hemangioma: a retrospective study in an Asian population

Although the efficacy of propranolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma (IH) has been well established, clinical data on the safety and tolerability of propranolol in neonates are still lacking. In this work, clinical data of 112 neonates with IH were analyzed retrospectively. All of the patients were evaluated in the hospital at the beginning of the treatment and later in outpatient settings during the treatment. Each time, the following monitoring methods were applied: physical examination, ultrasound echocardiography (UCG), electrocardiography (ECG), blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and basic laboratory tests including blood glucose (BG), liver function, blood potassium, thyroid function. There was a significant reduction in BP and HR at the initiation of treatment. The incidences of bradycardia and hypoglycemia were observed to be increased with the prolong duration of treatment, but not prolonged PR interval. During the course of the therapy, the risk of hyperkalemia and hypothyroidism was reached maximum at the 2 months and 3 months, respectively. Physical growth index including average height, weight and head circumference was not influenced by the treatment. The observed adverse effects were majority mild and only 3 patients needed to rest for 7 days due to severe diarrhea before restarting treatment. This study demonstrated that propranolol is safe and well-tolerated by properly selected young infants with IH. No serious adverse events were observed.

Interventions for infantile haemangiomas of the skin

BACKGROUND

Infantile haemangiomas (previously known as strawberry birthmarks) are soft, raised swellings of the skin that occur in 3% to 10% of infants. These benign vascular tumours are usually uncomplicated and tend to regress spontaneously. However, when haemangiomas occur in high-risk areas, such as near the eyes, throat, or nose, impairing their function, or when complications develop, intervention may be necessary. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for the management of infantile haemangiomas in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and CINAHL. We also searched five trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all types of interventions, versus placebo, active monitoring, or other interventions, in any child with single or multiple infantile haemangiomas (IHs) located on the skin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were clearance, a subjective measure of improvement, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were other measures of resolution; proportion of parents or children who consider there is still a problem; aesthetic appearance; and requirement for surgical correction. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs, with a total of 1728 participants, assessing 12 different interventions, including lasers, beta blockers (e.g. propranolol, timolol maleate), radiation therapy, and steroids. Comparators included placebo, an active monitoring approach, sham radiation, and interventions given alone or in combination.Studies were conducted in a number of countries, including China, Egypt, France, and Australia. Participant age ranged from 12 weeks to 13.4 years. Most studies (23/28) included a majority of females and different types of IHs. Duration of follow-up ranged from 7 days to 72 months.We considered most of the trials as at low risk of random sequence generation, attrition bias, and selective reporting bias. Domains such as allocation concealment and blinding were not clearly reported in general. We downgraded evidence for issues related to risk of bias and imprecision.We report results for the three most important comparisons, which we chose on the basis of current use. Outcome measurement of these comparisons was at 24 weeks' follow-up.Oral propranolol versus placeboCompared with placebo, oral propranolol 3 mg/kg/day probably improves clinician-assessed clearance (risk ratio (RR) 16.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.22 to 65.34; 1 study; 156 children; moderate-quality evidence) and probably leads to a clinician-assessed reduction in mean haemangioma volume of 45.9% (95% CI 11.60 to 80.20; 1 study; 40 children; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in terms of short- or long-term serious adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.39; 3 studies; 509 children; low-quality evidence), nor in terms of bronchospasm, hypoglycaemia, or serious cardiovascular adverse events. The results relating to clearance and resolution for this comparison were based on one industry-sponsored study.Topical timolol maleate versus placeboThe chance of reduction of redness, as a measure of clinician-assessed resolution, may be improved with topical timolol maleate 0.5% gel applied twice daily when compared with placebo (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 60.09; 1 study; 41 children;low-quality evidence). Regarding short- or long-term serious cardiovascular events, we found no instances of bradycardia (slower than normal heart rate) or hypotension in either group (1 study; 41 children; low-quality evidence). No other safety data were assessed, and clearance was not measured.Oral propranolol versus topical timolol maleateWhen topical timolol maleate (0.5% eye drops applied twice daily) was compared with oral propranolol (via a tablet taken once per day, at a 1.0 mg/kg dose), there was no evidence of a difference in haemangioma size (as a measure of resolution) when measured by the proportion of patients with a clinician-assessed reduction of 50% or greater (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.97; 1 study; 26 participants; low-quality evidence). Although there were more short- or long-term general adverse effects (such as severe diarrhoea, lethargy, and loss of appetite) in the oral propranolol group, there was no evidence of a difference between groups (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 123.35; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-quality evidence). This comparison did not measure clearance.None of our key comparisons evaluated, at any follow-up, a subjective measure of improvement assessed by the parent or child; proportion of parents or children who consider there is still a problem; or physician-, child-, or parent-assessed aesthetic appearance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found there to be a limited evidence base for the treatment of infantile haemangiomas: a large number of interventions and outcomes have not been assessed in RCTs.Our key results indicate that in the management of IH in children, oral propranolol and topical timolol maleate are more beneficial than placebo in terms of clearance or other measures of resolution, or both, without an increase in harms. We found no evidence of a difference between oral propranolol and topical timolol maleate with regard to reducing haemangioma size, but we are uncertain if there is a difference in safety. Oral propranolol is currently the standard treatment for this condition, and our review has not found evidence to challenge this. However, these results are based on moderate- to very low-quality evidence.The included studies were limited by small sample sizes and risk of bias in some domains. Future trials should blind personnel and participants; describe trials thoroughly in publications; and recruit a sufficient number of children to deduce meaningful results. Future trials should assess patient-reported outcomes, as well as objective outcomes of benefit, and should report adverse events comprehensively. Propranolol and timolol maleate require further assessment in RCTs of all types of IH, including those considered problematic, as do other lesser-used interventions and new interventions. All treatments should be compared against propranolol and timolol maleate, as beta blockers are approved as standard care.

Safety and tolerance of propranolol in neonates with severe infantile hemangiomas: a prospective study

Although the efficacy of propranolol for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas (IHs) has been well documented, there is a paucity of clinical data regarding the safety and tolerance of propranolol in neonates. A prospective study of 51 patients less than 30 days of age with severe IH was conducted. All patients were admitted to the hospital for monitoring during initial propranolol treatment at day 0 with dose adjustments at days 7 and 28. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), blood glucose (BG) levels and potential side effects were evaluated during treatment. There were significant decreases in mean heart rate and SBP after the initiation of propranolol therapy (P < 0.05). In contrast, no significant differences in mean DBP and BG levels were observed after each dose during hospitalization (P > 0.05). Bradycardia and hypotension were noted in at least 1 recorded instance in 11.8% and 5.9% of patients, respectively. These hemodynamic changes were not persistent and were asymptomatic. Two patients who had a history of neonatal pneumonia reported severe bronchial hyperreactivity during treatment. This study demonstrated that propranolol administered to properly selected young infants was safe and well tolerated. However, close monitoring should be considered in high-risk young patients.