Comparative Efficacy of Drug Interventions for Keloids: A Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Keloids are common benign skin lesions originating from a disorganized fibroproliferative collagen response; these lesions often lead to both physical and psychological problems. The optimal treatment for keloids is yet to be standardized. Intralesional injection, which is simple and nontraumatic, is one of the most commonly used treatment modalities for these lesions. In this study, we compared 5 different drugs (intralesional injections) for the treatment of keloids in terms of efficacy.
Methods: We systemically searched relevant studies on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials on the safety and efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), botulinum toxin A (BTA), verapamil, and bleomycin were included in this study.
Results: This network meta-analysis included a total of 1114 patients from 20 randomized controlled trials. Botulinum toxin A alone and TAC plus 5-FU exhibited significantly better efficacy than did 5-FU, TAC, and verapamil. No significant difference in efficacy between BTA alone and TAC combined with 5-FU was observed. No significant differences were noted in the adverse event rate between BTA, TAC plus 5-FU, 5-FU, and TAC. Furthermore, we performed surface under the cumulative ranking curve analyses to predict the rank of each intervention (by efficacy and adverse event rate). The predicted ranking by efficacy was as follows: TAC plus 5-FU, BTA, bleomycin, TAC, 5-FU, and verapamil; the predicted ranking by adverse events was as follows: TAC, 5-FU, TAC plus 5-FU, and BTA. Funnel plot analysis revealed no publication bias.
Conclusions: Botulinum toxin A and TAC plus 5-FU appear to have outstanding therapeutic efficacy for keloids. The rate of adverse events was similar among BTA, TAC, 5-FU, and TAC plus 5-FU. Nonetheless, additional reviews of rigorous, large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted for further validation of our findings.
Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)