ArticleJPRAS open2022
Cost-effectiveness of atenolol compared to propranolol as first-line treatment of infantile haemangioma: A pilot study.
Article in JPRAS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Propranolol is the first-line agent for the treatment of infantile haemangioma (IH). Due to its non-selective beta blockade respiratory adverse events are commonplace. Atenolol is a selective beta-1 antagonist and is a second line for patients with a significant respiratory history or those intolerant of propranolol. Previous studies suggest that the two treatments are equally efficacious; however; the narrow side effect profile and once-daily administration of atenolol makes it an attractive alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of atenolol and propranolol in the treatment of IH. Over a two-year period, five patients with nine IH received the first-line treatment with atenolol. Nine individual lesions from six propranolol patients were matched to these lesions, according to patient demographics and IH characteristics. Treatment response was determined by two independent clinician using both the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and Haemangioma Activity Score (HAS). A cost-analysis of those treated with atenolol was undertaken and compared to the equivalent costing for standard and maximum dose propranolol. Treatment efficacy of atenolol was comparable to propranolol with mean change in VAS and HAS scores of -7.0 (vs -7.2) and 6.1 (vs 5.7), respectively. The cost analysis revealed atenolol was over 20 times less expensive than standard dose propranolol. In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that atenolol is significantly less expensive and at least as effective as propranolol. These findings highlight the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial to further investigate the cost-effectiveness of these two agents in the treatment of IH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.