Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Zhejiang University Jinhua Hospital, Jinhua, China.
Int J Dermatol. 2020 Nov;59(11):1320-1331. doi: 10.1111/ijd.15015. Epub 2020 Jul 14.
Whether infantile hemangiomas (IHs) need to be treated and which treatment should be preferred are still controversial. We aimed to compare and rank the treatments and identify the optimal treatment for IHs. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and other sources for randomized controlled trials up to August 2019. We included trials comparingdifferent treatments and reported response or adverse events rate in IH patients. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies by specific criteria and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects were performed for pair-to-pair and Bayesian framework network meta-analyses. The primary outcomes were efficacy and safety. We deemed 20 studies eligible, including 1149 participants and eight interventions. For efficacy, oral propranolol and topical propranolol/timolol were better than observation/placebo (OR, 95% CrI: 17.05, 4.02-94.94; 9.72, 1.91-59.08). For safety, topical propranolol/timolol was significantly better tolerated than oral propranolol (0.05, 0.001-0.66). Cluster analysis demonstrated oral propranolol was the most effective treatment for IHs, while topical propranolol/timolol showed high efficacy and the highest safety. Laser, intralesional propranolol or glucocorticoid, oral glucocorticoid, or captopril had significantly lower priority than oral propranolol or topical propranolol/timolol considering both efficacy and safety. The quality of evidence was rated as moderate or low in most comparisons. This network meta-analysis found topical beta-blockers had the potential to be the most preferable and beneficial option for IHs in consideration of both efficacy and safety.
婴幼儿血管瘤(IHs)是否需要治疗以及应首选哪种治疗方法仍存在争议。我们旨在比较和评估治疗方法,并确定治疗 IHs 的最佳方法。我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆、Web of Science 等数据库,截至 2019 年 8 月,我们纳入了比较不同治疗方法并报告 IH 患者反应或不良事件发生率的随机对照试验。两位审查员根据特定标准独立评估研究并提取数据。我们使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。对于两两比较和贝叶斯框架网络荟萃分析,我们采用了随机效应模型。主要结局是疗效和安全性。我们认为有 20 项研究符合条件,包括 1149 名参与者和 8 种干预措施。对于疗效,口服普萘洛尔和局部普萘洛尔/噻吗洛尔优于观察/安慰剂(OR,95%CrI:17.05,4.02-94.94;9.72,1.91-59.08)。对于安全性,局部普萘洛尔/噻吗洛尔的耐受性明显优于口服普萘洛尔(0.05,0.001-0.66)。聚类分析表明,口服普萘洛尔是治疗 IHs 最有效的方法,而局部普萘洛尔/噻吗洛尔显示出较高的疗效和最高的安全性。激光、局部注射普萘洛尔或糖皮质激素、口服糖皮质激素或卡托普利的疗效和安全性均明显低于口服普萘洛尔或局部普萘洛尔/噻吗洛尔,故优先级较低。在大多数比较中,证据质量被评为中度或低度。本网络荟萃分析发现,考虑到疗效和安全性,局部β受体阻滞剂有可能成为治疗 IHs 的最可取和最有益的选择。