ePrints

Propranolol in the treatment of infantile haemangiomas: Lessons from the European Propranolol in the Treatment of Complicated Haemangiomas (PITCH) Taskforce survey

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Suzy Leech, Dr Aileen Taylor

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.

Abstract

© 2015 British Association of Dermatologists. Background Oral propranolol is widely prescribed as first-line treatment for infantile haemangiomas (IHs). Anecdotally, prescribing practice differs widely between centres. Objectives The Propranolol In the Treatment of Complicated Haemangiomas (PITCH) Taskforce was founded to establish patterns of use of propranolol in IHs. Methods Participating centres entered data on all of their patients who had completed treatment with oral propranolol for IHs, using an online data capture tool. Results The study cohort comprised 1097 children from 39 centres in eight European countries. 76·1% were female and 92·8% had a focal IH, with the remainder showing a segmental, multifocal or indeterminate pattern. The main indications for treatment were periocular location (29·3%), risk of cosmetic disfigurement (21·1%) and ulceration and bleeding (20·6%). In total 69·2% of patients were titrated up to a maintenance regimen, which consisted of 2 mg kg-1 per day (85·8%) in the majority of cases. 91·4% of patients had an excellent or good response to treatment. Rebound growth occurred in 14·1% upon stopping, of whom 53·9% were restarted and treatment response was recaptured in 91·6% of cases. While there was no significant difference in the treatment response, comparing a daily maintenance dose of < 2 mg kg-1 vs. 2 mg kg-1 vs. > 2 mg kg-1, the risk of adverse events was significantly higher: odds ratio (OR) 1 vs. adjusted OR 0·70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·33-1·50, P = 0·36 vs. OR 2·38, 95% CI 1·04-5·46, P = 0·04, Ptrend < 0·001. Conclusions The PITCH survey summarizes the use of oral propranolol across 39 European centres, in a variety of IH phases, and could be used to inform treatment guidelines and the design of an interventional study.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Wedgeworth E, Glover M, Irvine AD, Neri I, Baselga E, Clayton TH, Beattie PE, Bjerre JV, Burrows NP, Foelster-Holst R, Hedelund L, Hernandez-Martin A, Audrain H, Bhate K, Brown SJ, Baryschpolec S, Darne S, Durack A, Dvorakova V, Gach J, Goldstraw N, Goodyear H, Grabczynska S, Greenblatt D, Halpern J, Hearn RMR, Hoey S, Hughes B, Jayaraj R, Johansson EK, Lam M, Leech S, O'Regan GM, Morrison D, Porter W, Ramesh R, Schill T, Shaw L, Taylor AEM, Taylor R, Thomson J, Tiffin P, Tsakok M, Janmohamed SR, Laguda B, McPherson T, Oranje AP, Patrizi A, Ravenscroft JC, Shahidullah H, Solman L, Svensson A, Wahlgren CF, Hoeger PH, Flohr C

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: British Journal of Dermatology

Year: 2016

Volume: 174

Issue: 3

Pages: 594-601

Print publication date: 01/03/2016

Online publication date: 16/10/2015

Acceptance date: 05/10/2015

ISSN (print): 0007-0963

ISSN (electronic): 1365-2133

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

URL: http://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.14233

DOI: 10.1111/bjd.14233

Altmetrics

Share