Premium
Efficacy and safety of verapamil vs triamcinolone acetonide for keloids and hypertrophic scars: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Liu Ruiquan,
Yang Bin,
Deng Zhu,
Liu Liu,
Zhao Xian
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
dermatologic therapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.595
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1529-8019
pISSN - 1396-0296
DOI - 10.1111/dth.13564
Subject(s) - medicine , triamcinolone acetonide , hypertrophic scars , adverse effect , meta analysis , randomized controlled trial , vascularity , hypertrophic scar , verapamil , confidence interval , surgery , dermatology , scars , calcium
The treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars remains a challenge. Although triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) is one of the most common and effective treatments for keloids and hypertrophic scars, TAC is not effective in some patients, and some may even experience adverse outcomes. Verapamil might be considered a safe alternative to TAC. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of verapamil and TAC for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars. Three databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database) were electronically searched from 1997 to December 2019. Article selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Two authors independently assessed the selection of studies, risk of bias, and extracted the data. Mean differences (MDs) were computed for continuous variables, risk ratios (RRs) were computed for dichotomous variables, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for both assessments. Five RCTs were included, comprising a total of 215 patients (273 scars). Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) parameters (such as height, vascularity, pliability, and pigmentation) were reported as the outcome measures and provided detailed values in four studies. No significant differences were observed between verapamil and TAC in the reduction of height (MD 0.57, 95% CI −0.94 to 2.08, P = .46), vascularity (MD 0.30, 95% CI −0.42 to 1.02, P = .41), pliability (MD 0.67, 95% CI −1.12 to 2.47, P = .46), and degree of pigmentation (MD 0.14, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.69, P = .61). Adverse outcomes were reported in four studies. The results showed that the incidence of telangiectasia and skin atrophy that used verapamil was significantly lower than that for TAC. Concerning the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars, even though verapamil was safer than TAC, TAC worked faster than verapamil. Furthermore, we did not find any clear evidence that verapamil was more or less effective than TAC. Considering the high degree of safety of verapamil, we suggest that verapamil might be used as an alternative treatment when TAC results in adverse outcomes.