Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Common Therapies in Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

At present, there are many therapies for treating keloids and hypertrophic scars, but there is still a lack of treatments that are relatively balanced in efficacy and safety. The study aims to evaluate comprehensively efficacy and safety of common therapies in keloids and hypertrophic scars. The literature search was conducted up to May 2019. The traditional meta-analysis was performed on 17 therapies. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted on the four most common treatments. The outcome indicators were the numbers of patients with good-to-excellent effect, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and adverse events. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) compared with other monotherapies except for silicone gel sheet and neodymium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet in primary indicator. The combination therapies were superior to TAC, and the results were consistent after the pooled analysis (RR = 0.522, 95% CI 0.332–0.823). The level of VSS in TAC group was higher than that in 5-flurouracil (5-FU) and TAC + 5-FU group, but lower than that in verapamil (VER) group. And the patients treated with TAC were less safe than those treated with verapamil (P = 0.013). Surface under cumulative ranking ranked verapamil and TAC + 5-FU as the favorable efficacy therapies in terms of primary indicator and ranked TAC + 5-FU as the best therapy for VSS, while VER was ranked as the worst. This meta-analysis showed that TAC + 5-FU may be the most effective therapy, while verapamil may be a better therapeutic strategy for safety. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.