Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Propranolol versus Other Treatments for Infantile Hemangiomas: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Epidemiological studies evaluating treatments for infantile hemangiomas have produced inconsistent results. A meta-analysis of published data was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral propranolol versus other treatments for infantile hemangiomas.

Methods

A meta-analysis was conducted based on literature (published from 1960 to December 1, 2014) found on the PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID search engines. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for the outcome measures. Heterogeneity, publication bias and subgroup analysis were performed.

Results

A total of 61 studies involving 5,130 participants met the inclusion criteria. Propranolol was found to be a more effective modality in treating IHs (ORs = 0.92; 95%CI, 0.89–0.95) and had fewer complications compared to the other treatments including systemic steroids (ORs = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59–0.76); laser ablation (ORs = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43–0.67); other beta-adrenergic blockers (ORs = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50–0.61) and surgery (ORs = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.28–0.81). A subgroup analysis of propranolol showed that a dose of 2 mg/kg/day or more yielded better outcomes (ORs = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.95; ORs = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89–1.00), and IHs that had not been previously treated had better responses to propranolol treatment (ORs = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91–0.98).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis demonstrated that propranolol was more effective and safer than other therapies in treating IHs. It provides strong evidence for supporting the use of propranolol as a first-line therapy for IHs.