Atenolol treatment for severe infantile hemangiomas: comparison with a propranolol group of our centre

Should Propranolol Remain the Gold Standard for Treatment of Infantile Hemangioma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Propranolol Versus Atenolol

BACKGROUND

Although propranolol has been established as the gold standard when treatment is sought for infantile hemangioma, concerns over its side effect profile have led to increasing usage of atenolol, a beta-1 selective blocker.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA guidelines using MeSH terms and keywords for the terms propranolol, atenolol, and infantile hemangioma, including alternative spellings. All randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies directly comparing outcomes of hemangioma treatment with atenolol and propranolol were included. A meta-analysis with pooled mean differences, pooled odds ratios, and analysis of proportions was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 669 participants in 7 studies (3 RCTs and 4 cohort) were included. Propranolol showed a significantly higher rate of complete response compared to atenolol (73.3% vs 85.4%, P = .0004). The pooled mean difference of 0.07 (95% CI -0.12, 0.27) in Hemangioma Activity Score (HAS) was not statistically significant. In terms of side effects, there were significantly more agitation and bronchial hyperreactivity events in the propranolol group (P = .0245 and P < .0001, respectively). Overall, there was a significantly greater number of adverse events in the propranolol group compared to the atenolol group (185 vs 117, P < .00001). The overall pooled odds ratio was 2.70 (95% CI 1.90, 3.84), indicating that there is 2.7 times higher odds of adverse events in the propranolol group.

CONCLUSION

Propranolol treatment leads to a significantly higher rate of complete response than atenolol. However, its use must be weighed against its greater side effect profile.

Medical Management of Infantile Hemangiomas: An Update

Infantile hemangioma (IH) is the most common benign vascular tumor of infancy, affecting about 5% of infants. It has a characteristic growth pattern of early rapid proliferation followed by progressive involution. Although most IH evolve favorably, complications are observed in 10-15% of cases, justifying treatment. For over 10 years now, propranolol has become the first-line therapy for complicated IH, revolutionizing their management and their prognosis. In this article, we review the clinical features, associations, complications/sequelae and therapeutic approaches for IH, focusing on current medical therapy. Indications for treatment and various treatment options, including propranolol and other oral β-blockers, topical timolol, and corticosteroids are presented. Current controversies regarding oral propranolol such as pre-treatment screening, in- vs out-patient initiation of treatment, early and potential long-term side effects and recommended monitoring are discussed.

Atenolol vs. propranolol for the treatment of infantile haemangiomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Infantile haemangioma (IH) is a benign vascular tumour type that occurs in 3-10% of infants. In the present meta-analysis, previous studies comparing clinical outcomes, including the recovery rate and haemangioma activity score (HAS), adverse effects and relapse rates, were compared between patients treated with atenolol and those treated with propranolol for IH. A systematic search in various databases, including Medline, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar from inception until July 2019 was performed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of published trials. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model and reported pooled mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs was performed. In total, 8 studies including 608 participants were analyzed. Only 2 studies were randomized controlled trials, while the majority of studies had low or unclear bias risks. Except for the response to medication (pooled OR=1.49; 95% CI, 0.85-2.18), all other outcomes (HAS, adverse reactions and relapse rate) were better for the atenolol group than the propranolol group. Atenolol resulted in better HAS (pooled MD=0.16; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.73). Propranolol had more adverse reactions (pooled OR=2.17; 95% CI, 0.93-5.06) and a higher relapse rate (pooled OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.44-6.41) when compared to atenolol. However, these findings were not statistically significant. The results of this analysis suggest that atenolol may be non-inferior to propranolol and may offer advantages, including lower adverse reactions and relapse rates.