-
Journal of the European Academy of... May 2019There have been a number of case reports and small clinical trials reporting promising outcomes of Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, ruxolitinib and baricitinib... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There have been a number of case reports and small clinical trials reporting promising outcomes of Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, ruxolitinib and baricitinib for alopecia areata (AA). The majority of the literature to date is based on small volume data, with a lack of definitive evidence or guidelines. To determine the expected response of AA to JAK inhibitor therapy and factors which influence response and recurrence rates. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. From 30 studies and 289 cases, there were 72.4% responders, good responders 45.7% and partial responders 21.4%. Mean time to initial hair growth was 2.2 ± 6.7 months, and time to complete hair regrowth was 6.7 ± 2.2 months. All 37 recurrences occurred when treatment was ceased after 2.7 months. Oral route was significantly associated with response to treatment compared to topical therapy. No difference was found between paediatric and adult cases in proportion of responses. There is promising low-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of JAK inhibitors in AA. Future large-sized randomized studies are required to confirm findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Alopecia Areata; Female; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30762909
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15489 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2021COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17-87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alopecia; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; COVID-19; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Headache; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult
PubMed: 34373540
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-95565-8 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Jan 2019Treatment of male androgenetic alopecia with 5α-reductase inhibitors is efficacious. However, the risk of adverse sexual effects remains controversial. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatment of male androgenetic alopecia with 5α-reductase inhibitors is efficacious. However, the risk of adverse sexual effects remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the risk of adverse sexual effects due to treatment of androgenetic alopecia in male patients with finasteride, 1 mg/day, or dutasteride, 0.5 mg/day. Fifteen randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials (4,495 subjects) were meta-analysed. Use of 5α-reductase inhibitors carried a 1.57-fold risk of sexual dysfunction (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.19-2.08). The relative risk was 1.66 (95% CI 1.20-2.30) for finasteride and 1.37 (95% CI 0.81-2.32) for dutasteride. Both drugs were associated with an increased risk, although the increase was not statistically significant for dutasteride. As studies into dutasteride were limited, further trials are required. It is important that physicians are aware of, and assess, the possibility of sexual dysfunction in patients treated with 5α-reductase inhibitors.
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Administration, Oral; Alopecia; Dutasteride; Ejaculation; Erectile Dysfunction; Finasteride; Humans; Libido; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sexual Behavior; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological
PubMed: 30206635
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3035 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Mar 2020Alopecia areata (AA) is a common autoimmune alopecia with heterogeneous severity and distribution. Previous studies found conflicting results about AA epidemiology. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is a common autoimmune alopecia with heterogeneous severity and distribution. Previous studies found conflicting results about AA epidemiology.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the prevalence, incidence, and predictors of AA, alopecia totalis, alopecia ophiasis, and alopecia universalis.
METHODS
A systematic review of all published cohort and cross-sectional studies that analyzed AA and its subtypes. MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and GREAT were searched. At least 2 reviewers performed study title/abstract review and data extraction. Random-effects meta-analysis was used because of significant heterogeneity (I = 99.97%).
RESULTS
Ninety-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval, N) of AA overall was 2.11% (1.82-2.42, N = 302,157,365), with differences of population-based (0.75% [0.49-1.06%], N = 301,173,403) and clinic-based (3.47% [3.01-3.96], N = 983,962) studies. The prevalences of alopecia totalis, ophiasis, and universalis were 0.08% (0.04-0.13, N = 1,088,149), 0.02% (0.00-0.06, N = 1,075,203), and 0.03% (0.01-0.06, N = 1,085,444), respectively. AA prevalence (95% confidence interval) increased over time (<2000: 1.02% [0.85-1.22]; 2000-2009: 1.76% [1.51-2.03]; >2009: 3.22% [2.59-3.92]; P < .0001) and differed by region. AA prevalence was significantly lower in adults (1.47% [1.18-1.80]) than children (1.92% [1.31-2.65]; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS
AA affects 2% of the global population. AA prevalence is lower in adults than children, is increasing over time, and significantly differs by region.
Topics: Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Humans; Incidence; Prevalence
PubMed: 31437543
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.032 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2023Mesotherapy is a technique by which lower doses of therapeutic agents and bioactive substances are administered by intradermal injections to the skin. Through... (Review)
Review
Mesotherapy is a technique by which lower doses of therapeutic agents and bioactive substances are administered by intradermal injections to the skin. Through intradermal injections, mesotherapy can increase the residence time of therapeutic agents in the affected area, thus allowing for the use of lower doses and longer intervals between sessions which may in turn improve the treatment outcome and patient compliance. This systematic review aims to summarize the current literature that evaluates the efficacy of this technique for the treatment of hair loss and provides an overview of the results observed. Of the 416 records identified, 27 articles met the inclusion criteria. To date, mesotherapy using 6 classes of agents and their combinations have been studied; this includes dutasteride, minoxidil, growth factors or autologous suspension, botulinum toxin A, stem cells, and mesh solutions/multivitamins. While several studies report statistically significant improvements in hair growth after treatment, there is currently a lack of standardized regimens. The emergence of adverse effects after mesotherapy has been reported. Further large-scale and controlled clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the utility of mesotherapy for hair loss disorders.
Topics: Humans; Mesotherapy; Alopecia; Minoxidil; Treatment Outcome; Injections, Intradermal
PubMed: 37558233
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2245084 -
Dermatologic Therapy May 2021Existing guidelines form no consensus for alopecia areata (AA) treatment due to the absence of a universal standard treatment and arbitrary selection of reference arms... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Existing guidelines form no consensus for alopecia areata (AA) treatment due to the absence of a universal standard treatment and arbitrary selection of reference arms in randomized control trials (RCTs). The aim is to identify the best treatment and to rank treatments using systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data were extracted by the two investigators independently. Odds ratio (OR) of treatment success rate was pooled using the frequentist weighted least squares approach to random-model network meta-analysis. RCTs providing data of treatment success rate from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and manual search were included. About 54 RCTs consisting of 49 treatments and 3149 patients were included. Pentoxifylline plus topical corticosteroids had the highest treatment success rate compared with "no treatment," followed by pentoxifylline alone, topical calcipotriol plus narrowband ultraviolet radiation B phototherapy, topical calcipotriol, intralesional corticosteroids, systemic corticosteroids, minoxidil plus topical corticosteroids, topical bimatoprost, psoralen ultraviolet radiation A phototherapy, and tofacitinib. Even with the network meta-analysis, the best treatment because of independent loops and wide confidence intervals could not be identified. Treatment options above may be reasonable strategies, but further comparison is required.
Topics: Alopecia Areata; Humans; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Phototherapy; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 33631058
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14916 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2020The number of articles evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) efficacy in androgenic alopecia (AGA) have exponentially increased during the last decade. A systematic...
The number of articles evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) efficacy in androgenic alopecia (AGA) have exponentially increased during the last decade. A systematic review on this field was performed by assessing in the selected studies the local injections of PRP compared to any control for AGA. The protocol was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A multistep search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PreMEDLINE, Ebase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus database, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies on hair loss treatment with platelet-rich plasma. Of the 163 articles initially identified, 123 articles focusing on AGA were selected and, consequently, only 12 clinical trials were analyzed. The studies included had to match predetermined criteria according to the PICOS (patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design) approach. In total, 84% of the studies reported a positive effect of PRP for AGA treatment. Among them, 50% of the studies demonstrated a statistically significant improvement using objective measures and 34% of the studies showed hair density and hair thickness improvement, although no values or statistical analysis was described. In total, 17% of the studies reported greater improvement in lower-grade AGA, while 8% noted increased improvement in higher-grade AGA. Only 17% of the studies reported that PRP was not effective in treating AGA. The information analyzed highlights the positive effects of PRP on AGA, without major side effects and thus it be may considered as a safe and effective alternative procedure to treat hair loss compared with Minoxidil and Finasteride.
Topics: Adult Stem Cells; Alopecia; Combined Modality Therapy; Finasteride; Humans; Minoxidil; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Stem Cell Transplantation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32295047
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21082702 -
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational... 2023Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) has negative impacts on both men and women in terms of appearance and mental stress. Spironolactone is a synthetic aldosterone receptor... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) has negative impacts on both men and women in terms of appearance and mental stress. Spironolactone is a synthetic aldosterone receptor antagonist known to stimulate hair growth and has been widely used by dermatologists to treat AGA.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of topical and oral spironolactone in AGA treatment.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science until October 23rd, 2022, for human studies evaluating the efficacy of spironolactone for the treatment of AGA, regardless of doses and routes.
RESULTS
We retrieved 784 papers and ultimately 7 articles matched our inclusion criteria and comprised 618 AGA patients (65 men, 553 women), 414 of them received spironolactone treatment. Oral spironolactone doses ranged from 25mg to 200mg daily, with the vast majority between 80mg and 110 mg. Dosage forms for topical spironolactone use include gels of 1% and solutions of 5% twice daily. Both oral and topical spironolactone have been shown efficacy for alopecia recovery, but topical use has significantly fewer side effects and is suitable for any gender. It showed better efficacy in combination with other therapies such as oral or topical minoxidil compared with monotherapy.
CONCLUSION
Spironolactone is an effective and safe treatment of androgenic alopecia which can enhance the efficacy when combined with other conventional treatments such as minoxidil. Topical spironolactone is safer than oral administration and is suitable for both male and female patients, and is expected to become a common drug for those who do not have a good response to minoxidil. Furthermore, more high-quality clinical randomized controlled studies should be performed.
PubMed: 36923692
DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S398950 -
Cells Mar 2023Androgenetic alopecia is a condition that results in hair loss in both men and women. This can have a significant impact on a person's psychological well-being, which... (Review)
Review
Androgenetic alopecia is a condition that results in hair loss in both men and women. This can have a significant impact on a person's psychological well-being, which can lead to a decreased quality of life. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of using stem cells in androgenic alopecia. The search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The review was performed on data pertaining to the efficacy of using different types of stem cells in androgenic alopecia: quantitative results of stem cell usage were compared to the control treatment or, different types of treatment for female and male androgenetic alopecia. Of the outcomes, the density of hair was analyzed. Fourteen articles were selected for this review. During and after treatment with stem cells, no major side effects were reported by patients with alopecia. The use of stem cells in androgenic alopecia seems to be a promising alternative to the standard treatment or it could play the role of complementary therapy to improve the effect of primary treatment. However, these results should be interpreted with caution until they can be reproduced in larger and more representative samples.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Quality of Life; Alopecia; Hair; Stem Cells
PubMed: 36980291
DOI: 10.3390/cells12060951 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.Observational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selenium; Sex Factors; Trace Elements
PubMed: 29376219
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005195.pub4