{"title":"Oral atenolol compared to oral propranolol for infantile hemangioma","authors":"Victor Meza Viteri, Ligia Aranibar","doi":"10.5867/medwave.2023.11.2753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Infantile hemangioma is the most frequent benign vascular tumor in childhood, with an incidence of 3 to 10%. When patients require treatment, oral propranolol, a non-selective lipophilic beta-blocker, is usually considered the therapy of choice. However, its use has been associated with several adverse events related to its β-2 action and its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Because of this, oral atenolol, a hydrophilic β-1 receptor-selective beta-blocker, may represent a valid treatment alternative. Nonetheless, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy and safety of atenolol when compared with propranolol as monotherapy for this condition. Methods We searched Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health science, which is maintained by screening multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, among others. Data were extracted from the identified reviews, data from the primary studies were analyzed, a meta-analysis was performed, and a summary table of the results was prepared using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Results Nine systematic reviews were identified, including 10 primary studies and three randomized trials. The three randomized trials were included in the analysis of this investigation. Conclusion The use of oral atenolol compared with oral propranolol as monotherapies may result in little or no difference in terms of likelihood of complete remission, decrease in Hemangioma Activity Score, likelihood of post-treatment relapse, and risk of adverse events and severe adverse events, in infantile hemangioma (low certainty of evidence).","PeriodicalId":18597,"journal":{"name":"Medwave","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medwave","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2023.11.2753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction Infantile hemangioma is the most frequent benign vascular tumor in childhood, with an incidence of 3 to 10%. When patients require treatment, oral propranolol, a non-selective lipophilic beta-blocker, is usually considered the therapy of choice. However, its use has been associated with several adverse events related to its β-2 action and its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Because of this, oral atenolol, a hydrophilic β-1 receptor-selective beta-blocker, may represent a valid treatment alternative. Nonetheless, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy and safety of atenolol when compared with propranolol as monotherapy for this condition. Methods We searched Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health science, which is maintained by screening multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, among others. Data were extracted from the identified reviews, data from the primary studies were analyzed, a meta-analysis was performed, and a summary table of the results was prepared using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Results Nine systematic reviews were identified, including 10 primary studies and three randomized trials. The three randomized trials were included in the analysis of this investigation. Conclusion The use of oral atenolol compared with oral propranolol as monotherapies may result in little or no difference in terms of likelihood of complete remission, decrease in Hemangioma Activity Score, likelihood of post-treatment relapse, and risk of adverse events and severe adverse events, in infantile hemangioma (low certainty of evidence).
期刊介绍:
Medwave is a peer-reviewed, biomedical and public health journal. Since its foundation in 2001 (Volume 1) it has always been an online only, open access publication that does not charge subscription or reader fees. Since January 2011 (Volume 11, Number 1), all articles are peer-reviewed. Without losing sight of the importance of evidence-based approach and methodological soundness, the journal accepts for publication articles that focus on providing updates for clinical practice, review and analysis articles on topics such as ethics, public health and health policy; clinical, social and economic health determinants; clinical and health research findings from all of the major disciplines of medicine, medical science and public health. The journal does not publish basic science manuscripts or experiments conducted on animals. Until March 2013, Medwave was publishing 11-12 numbers a year. Each issue would be posted on the homepage on day 1 of each month, except for Chile’s summer holiday when the issue would cover two months. Starting from April 2013, Medwave adopted the continuous mode of publication, which means that the copyedited accepted articles are posted on the journal’s homepage as they are ready. They are then collated in the respective issue and included in the Past Issues section.