Efficacy and safety of interventions for infantile hemangioma compared with oral propranolol: an updated systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis
In brief
Oral propranolol stays best; atenolol shows fewer adverse events
A Bayesian network meta-analysis of 30 randomized trials found no other therapy more effective than oral propranolol for infantile hemangioma, while corticosteroids caused more side effects. Atenolol appeared to have a lower rate of adverse events, suggesting it as a reasonable option for patients who cannot tolerate propranolol. Further high-quality trials are needed to confirm safety advantages.
- Journal
- European journal of pediatrics (Q1)
- Published
- 21 July 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Caihong Li, Liehao Yang, Lingfeng Pan
- PMID
- 42479211
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00431-026-07257-y
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Dermatology (top studies of the week, 26 July 2026): Infantile hemangioma network meta‑analysis, peripheral to dermatology
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy and safety of available interventions for infantile hemangioma against oral propranolol and to evaluate the certainty of the comparative evidence. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA-NMA guidelines and systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI from January 2008 to June 2026. A random-effects consistency model was fitted using the BUGSnet package. Evidence certainty was assessed using the CINeMA framework, and risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Thirty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 2,639 patients across nine treatment nodes were included in the efficacy analysis, and 12 RCTs involving 1,143 patients across eight nodes were included in the safety analysis. Using oral propranolol as the reference treatment, no active intervention demonstrated statistically significant superiority in efficacy, whereas placebo was significantly inferior. Corticosteroids were the only intervention associated with substantially higher adverse event rates, whereas atenolol showed a trend toward fewer adverse events. By anchoring all comparisons to oral propranolol and integrating CINeMA certainty assessments with inconsistency testing, these findings are consistent with the continued role of oral propranolol as the reference systemic treatment for infantile hemangioma. For patients intolerant to propranolol, atenolol may represent a reasonable alternative. CONCLUSIONS: By anchoring all comparisons to oral propranolol and integrating CINeMA certainty assessments with inconsistency testing, these findings are consistent with the continued role of oral propranolol as the reference systemic treatment for infantile hemangioma. For patients intolerant to propranolol, atenolol may represent a reasonable alternative. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Oral propranolol is the established first-line systemic therapy for infantile hemangioma. • Previous network meta-analyses have reported treatment rankings, but the clinical meaning of these rankings relative to oral propranolol remains uncertain. WHAT IS NEW: • Despite favorable point estimates for combination therapy and nadolol, this benchmark-anchored analysis found no included active intervention statistically superior to oral propranolol. • Certainty assessment showed that treatment rankings were limited by heterogeneity, inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision; atenolol had the largest body of direct comparative evidence among the alternatives.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.