口服阿替洛尔与口服普萘洛尔治疗婴儿血管瘤的比较

IF 1.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Victor Meza Viteri, Ligia Aranibar
{"title":"口服阿替洛尔与口服普萘洛尔治疗婴儿血管瘤的比较","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":"33 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"33 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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

摘要

婴儿血管瘤是儿童期最常见的良性血管肿瘤,发病率为3% ~ 10%。当患者需要治疗时,口服普萘洛尔(一种非选择性亲脂受体阻滞剂)通常被认为是治疗的选择。然而,它的使用与若干不良事件有关,这些不良事件与它的β-2作用及其穿过血脑屏障的能力有关。正因为如此,口服阿替洛尔,一种亲水性β-1受体选择性β受体阻滞剂,可能是一种有效的治疗选择。尽管如此,阿替洛尔与心得安作为单药治疗此病的疗效和安全性仍存在争议。方法检索最大的健康科学系统综述数据库Epistemonikos,该数据库通过筛选多种信息来源(包括MEDLINE/PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane等)来维护。从已识别的综述中提取数据,对主要研究的数据进行分析,进行荟萃分析,并使用分级推荐评估、发展和评价(GRADE)方法编制结果汇总表。结果共纳入9项系统评价,包括10项初步研究和3项随机试验。这三个随机试验被纳入本调查的分析。结论口服阿替洛尔与口服心得安单药相比,在婴幼儿血管瘤的完全缓解可能性、血管瘤活动评分降低、治疗后复发可能性、不良事件和严重不良事件风险方面差异不大或无差异(证据确定性低)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Oral atenolol compared to oral propranolol for infantile hemangioma
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).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medwave
Medwave MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
审稿时长
12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信