-
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Sep 2023Exosomes are small extracellular vesicles with potential roles in modulating the hair growth cycle and are an emerging therapy for patients with alopecia. In recent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Exosomes are small extracellular vesicles with potential roles in modulating the hair growth cycle and are an emerging therapy for patients with alopecia. In recent years, researchers have made significant progress in deciphering the network of cellular interactions and signaling pathways mediated by the transfer of exosomes. This has opened the door to a wide range of potential therapeutic applications with an increasing focus on its application in precision medicine.
AIM
To evaluate current published evidence, both preclinical and clinical, on the use of exosomes for hair restoration.
METHODS
In January 2023, a systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Records were identified, screened, and assessed for eligibility as per the PRISMA guideline.
RESULTS
We identified 16 studies (15 preclinical and 1 clinical) showing varying degrees of efficacy using exosomes derived from sources including adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) and dermal papilla cells (DPCs). Applications of exosomes isolated from ADSCs (ADSC-Exo) and DPCs have shown early promising results in preclinical studies corroborated by results obtained from different model systems. Topical ADSC-Exo has been tried successfully in 39 androgenetic alopecia patients demonstrating significant increases in hair density and thickness. No significant adverse reactions associated with exosome treatment have been reported thus far.
CONCLUSIONS
Although current clinical evidence supporting the use of exosome treatment is limited, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting its therapeutic potential. Further studies are warranted to define its mechanism of action, optimize its delivery and efficacy, and to address important safety concerns.
Topics: Humans; Exosomes; Adipose Tissue; Hair; Adipocytes; Alopecia
PubMed: 37381168
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15869 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenic alopecia, is the most common type of hair loss affecting women. It is characterised by progressive shortening of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenic alopecia, is the most common type of hair loss affecting women. It is characterised by progressive shortening of the duration of the growth phase of the hair with successive hair cycles, and progressive follicular miniaturisation with conversion of terminal to vellus hair follicles (terminal hairs are thicker and longer, while vellus hairs are soft, fine, and short). The frontal hair line may or may not be preserved. Hair loss can have a serious psychological impact on women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of the available options for the treatment of female pattern hair loss in women.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1872), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), PubMed (from 1947), and Web of Science (from 1945). We also searched five trial registries and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of interventions for FPHL in women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and carried out analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 trials, with 5290 participants, of which 25 trials were new to this update. Only five trials were at 'low risk of bias', 26 were at 'unclear risk', and 16 were at 'high risk of bias'.The included trials evaluated a wide range of interventions, and 17 studies evaluated minoxidil. Pooled data from six studies indicated that a greater proportion of participants (157/593) treated with minoxidil (2% and one study with 1%) reported a moderate to marked increase in their hair regrowth when compared with placebo (77/555) (risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 2.47; moderate quality evidence). These results were confirmed by the investigator-rated assessments in seven studies with 1181 participants (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.28; moderate quality evidence). Only one study reported on quality of life (QoL) (260 participants), albeit inadequately (low quality evidence). There was an important increase of 13.18 in total hair count per cm² in the minoxidil group compared to the placebo group (95% CI 10.92 to 15.44; low quality evidence) in eight studies (1242 participants). There were 40/407 adverse events in the twice daily minoxidil 2% group versus 28/320 in the placebo group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; low quality evidence). There was also no statistically significant difference in adverse events between any of the individual concentrations against placebo.Four studies (1006 participants) evaluated minoxidil 2% versus 5%. In one study, 25/57 participants in the minoxidil 2% group experienced moderate to greatly increased hair regrowth versus 22/56 in the 5% group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). In another study, 209 participants experienced no difference based on a visual analogue scale (P = 0.062; low quality evidence). The assessments of the investigators based on three studies (586 participants) were in agreement with these findings (moderate quality evidence). One study assessed QoL (209 participants) and reported limited data (low quality evidence). Four trials (1006 participants) did not show a difference in number of adverse events between the two concentrations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; low quality evidence). Both concentrations did not show a difference in increase in total hair count at end of study in three trials with 631 participants (mean difference (MD) -2.12, 95% CI -5.47 to 1.23; low quality evidence).Three studies investigated finasteride 1 mg compared to placebo. In the finasteride group 30/67 participants experienced improvement compared to 33/70 in the placebo group (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37; low quality evidence). This was consistent with the investigators' assessments (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.90; low quality evidence). QoL was not assessed. Only one study addressed adverse events (137 participants) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.34; low quality evidence). In two studies (219 participants) there was no clinically meaningful difference in change of hair count, whilst one study (12 participants) favoured finasteride (low quality evidence).Two studies (141 participants) evaluated low-level laser comb therapy compared to a sham device. According to the participants, the low-level laser comb was not more effective than the sham device (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.49; and RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.89; moderate quality evidence). However, there was a difference in favour of low-level laser comb for change from baseline in hair count (MD 17.40, 95% CI 9.74 to 25.06; and MD 17.60, 95% CI 11.97 to 23.23; low quality evidence). These studies did not assess QoL and did not report adverse events per treatment arm and only in a generic way (low quality evidence). Low-level laser therapy against sham comparisons in two separate studies also showed an increase in total hair count but with limited further data.Single studies addressed the other comparisons and provided limited evidence of either the efficacy or safety of these interventions, or were unlikely to be examined in future trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although there was a predominance of included studies at unclear to high risk of bias, there was evidence to support the efficacy and safety of topical minoxidil in the treatment of FPHL (mainly moderate to low quality evidence). Furthermore, there was no difference in effect between the minoxidil 2% and 5% with the quality of evidence rated moderate to low for most outcomes. Finasteride was no more effective than placebo (low quality evidence). There were inconsistent results in the studies that evaluated laser devices (moderate to low quality evidence), but there was an improvement in total hair count measured from baseline.Further randomised controlled trials of other widely-used treatments, such as spironolactone, finasteride (different dosages), dutasteride, cyproterone acetate, and laser-based therapy are needed.
Topics: Alopecia; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Finasteride; Hair; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Minoxidil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27225981
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007628.pub4 -
Skin Appendage Disorders Nov 2020Androgenetic alopecia is the most common cause of hair loss [. 2011 Jan;164(1):5-15]. Finasteride and minoxidil are the only approved treatments [. 2008 Oct;59(4):547-8... (Review)
Review
Androgenetic alopecia is the most common cause of hair loss [. 2011 Jan;164(1):5-15]. Finasteride and minoxidil are the only approved treatments [. 2008 Oct;59(4):547-8 and . 2018 Jan;32(1):11-22]. Dutasteride is more potent than finasteride due to its ability to inhibit both 5-α-reductase type I and II [. 2017 Sep;9(1):75-9] though its adverse effects and long half-life contribute to the reluctance on its oral use. Mesotherapy could be a feasible alternative to avoid systemic exposure and side effects [. 2009 Feb;20(1):137-45]. We aim to perform a systematic review to analyze scientific literature with the purpose of comparing efficacy and adverse effects of both administration routes. Five clinical trials using oral route and 3 intralesional in comparison with placebo met criteria for inclusion. Regarding intralesional dutasteride, only one study [. 2001 Mar;19(2):149-54] reported the mean change in hair count. Although both interventions favor over placebo, there are not enough data to reliably compare outcomes obtained between both routes. Mean increase in hair count observed with oral dutasteride was higher (MD: 15.92 hairs [95% CI: 9.87-21.96]; = <0.00001; = 90%) compared to intralesional dutasteride in Abdallah's study (MD: 7.90 hairs [95% CI: 7.14-8.66]; = <0.00001). Future studies are required to assess the therapeutic efficacy of both treatment routes, including head-to-head treatments before well-supported conclusions can be established.
PubMed: 33313048
DOI: 10.1159/000510697 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Oct 2022As a minimally invasive procedure, mesotherapy has been used in the cosmetic field for half a century and gets favorable results in fat reduction, facial rejuvenation,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
As a minimally invasive procedure, mesotherapy has been used in the cosmetic field for half a century and gets favorable results in fat reduction, facial rejuvenation, and hair regrowth. So far, it has achieved some exciting progression in pattern hair loss (PHL), which bothers plenty of people and has cost billion dollars searching for more effective treatment. The aim of this study is to summarize the efficacy of mesotherapy treating PHL.
METHODS
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched until January 2021. All literature was evaluated according to established criteria.
RESULTS
We got 336 studies from searched databases, and 12 studies were included after selection process. A total of 253 males and 274 females participated in 6 randomized control trials, 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, and 3 observational studies. Mesotherapy showed positive efficacy in all studies to a certain extent, and no significant side effect occurred.
CONCLUSION
Mesotherapy demonstrated as an effective treatment for PHL. However, the sample size is not big enough, and studies about mesotherapy compared to other treatments are insufficient. Future research is required to claim more evidence.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Mesotherapy; Alopecia; Hair; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35253335
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.14900 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Due to the lack of comprehensive evidence based on prospective studies, the efficacy and safety of Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors (including tofacitinib, ruxolitinib,...
Due to the lack of comprehensive evidence based on prospective studies, the efficacy and safety of Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors (including tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, baricitinib, ritlecitinib and brepocitinib) for alopecia areata (AA) are yet to be proved. The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed pursuant to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022303007). Fourteen prospective studies (5 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs), enrolling a total of 1845 patients with AA, were included for quantitative analysis. In RCTs, oral JAK inhibitors resulted in higher good response rate compared with control (RR: 6.86, 95% CI: 2.91-16.16); topical JAK inhibitors did not show any difference compared with control (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.31-3.18). In non-RCTs, the pooled rate of good response to oral, topical and sublingual JAK inhibitors were 63% (95% CI: 44%-80%), 28% (95% CI: 1%-72%) and 11% (95% CI: 1%-29%), respectively. The pooled recurrence rate in patients treated with JAK inhibitors was 54% (95% CI: 39%-69%), mainly due to the withdrawal of JAK inhibitors. In RCTs, no difference was found in the risk of experiencing most kind of adverse events; in non-RCTs, the reported adverse events with high incidence rate were mostly mild and manageable. JAK inhibitors are efficacious and generally well-tolerated in treating AA with oral administration, whereas topical or sublingual administration lacks efficacy. Subgroup analyses indicate that baricitinib, ritlecitinib and brepocitinib seem to have equal efficacy for AA in RCTs; ruxolitinib (vs. tofacitinib) and AA (vs. AT/AU) are associated with better efficacy outcomes in non-RCT. Due to the high recurrence rate after withdrawal of JAK inhibitors, continuous treatment should be considered to maintain efficacy. PROSPERO: CRD 42022303007.
PubMed: 36091777
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.950450 -
The Journal of Dermatology Jan 2022Trichoscopy represents a non-invasive diagnostic modality widely used in daily practice. Despite the common perception that this technique has been fairly established,... (Review)
Review
Trichoscopy represents a non-invasive diagnostic modality widely used in daily practice. Despite the common perception that this technique has been fairly established, some key issues remain to be addressed. Complexity and inconsistency in terminology in past literature are likely to confuse investigators when they are recording, reporting, and retrieving the findings. In addition, a diagnostic algorithm adopting sufficiently integrated and updated findings is not readily available. By adopting a systematic review approach, this review attempted to redefine major trichoscopic findings and integrate their synonyms individually into the most frequently used terms besides identifying and discussing terms which potentially cause confusion. The findings are categorized into five subgroups: hair shaft, follicular, perifollicular, scalp findings, and hair distribution pattern abnormalities. The calculation of sensitivities and positive predictive values of such redefined findings was conducted by reviewing the descriptions in the past literature on major hair diseases, including alopecia areata, androgenetic alopecia/female pattern hair loss, telogen effluvium, trichotillomania, lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, folliculitis decalvans, tinea capitis, and dissecting cellulitis, to confirm the diagnostically meaningful findings for representative diseases. This attempt redefined, for instance, yellow dots, short vellus hairs, exclamation mark hairs, black dots, and broken hairs as the findings of diagnostic significance for alopecia areata and hair diameter diversity, peripilar sign, and focal atrichia for androgenetic alopecia/female pattern hair loss. An updated diagnostic flowchart is proposed with the instructions to maximize its usefulness. Current limitations and future perspectives of trichoscopy as well as other emerging non-invasive diagnostic modalities for hair diseases are also discussed.
Topics: Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Dermoscopy; Female; Hair; Hair Diseases; Humans; Software Design
PubMed: 34806223
DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.16233 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) affects almost half the population, and several treatments intending to regenerate a normal scalp hair phenotype are used. This is the first...
BACKGROUND
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) affects almost half the population, and several treatments intending to regenerate a normal scalp hair phenotype are used. This is the first study comparing treatment efficacy response and resistance using standardized continuous outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare the relative efficacy of treatments used for terminal hair (TH) regrowth in women and men with AGA.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted (from inception to August 11, 2021) to identify randomized, Placebo-controlled trials with ≥ 20 patients and reporting changes in TH density after 24 weeks. Efficacy was analyzed by sex at 12 and 24 weeks using Bayesian network meta-analysis (B-NMA) and compared to frequentist and continuous outcomes profiles.
RESULTS
The search identified 2,314 unique articles. Ninety-eight were included for full-text review, and 17 articles met the inclusion criteria for data extraction and analyses. Eligible treatments included ALRV5XR, Dutasteride 0.5 mg/day, Finasteride 1 mg/day, low-level laser comb treatment (LLLT), Minoxidil 2% and 5%, Nutrafol, and Viviscal. At 24 weeks, the B-NMA regrowth efficacy in TH/cm and significance () in women were ALRV5XR: 30.09, LLLT: 16.62, Minoxidil 2%: 12.13, Minoxidil 5%: 10.82, and Nutrafol: 7.32, and in men; ALRV5XR: 21.03, LLLT: 18.75, Dutasteride: 18.37, Viviscal: 13.23, Minoxidil 5%: 13.13, Finasteride: 12.38, and Minoxidil 2%: 10.54. Two distinct TH regrowth response profiles were found; Continuous: ALRV5XR regrowth rates were linear in men and accelerated in women; Resistant: after 12 weeks, LLLT, Nutrafol, and Viviscal regrowth rates attenuated while Dutasteride and Finasteride plateaued; Minoxidil 2% and 5% lost some regrowth. There were no statistical differences for the same treatment between women and men. B-NMA provided more accurate, statistically relevant, and conservative results than the frequentist-NMA.
CONCLUSION
Some TH regrowth can be expected from most AGA treatments with less variability in women than men. Responses to drug treatments were rapid, showing strong early efficacy followed by the greatest resistance effects from flatlining to loss of regrowth after 12-16 weeks. Finasteride, Minoxidil 2% and Viviscal in men were not statistically different from Placebo. LLLT appeared more efficacious than pharmaceuticals. The natural product formulation ALRV5XR showed better efficacy in all tested parameters without signs of treatment resistance (see Graphical abstract).
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42021268040, identifier CRD42021268040.
PubMed: 36755885
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.998623 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Feb 2022Various treatments exist for androgenetic alopecia (AGA); we determined the relative efficacies of non-surgical AGA monotherapies separately for men and women. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Various treatments exist for androgenetic alopecia (AGA); we determined the relative efficacies of non-surgical AGA monotherapies separately for men and women.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov. Separate networks were used for men and women; for each network, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of mean change in hair count from baseline (in units of hairs per square centimeter) was performed using a random effects model.
RESULTS
The networks for male and female AGA included 30 and 10 RCTs, respectively. We identified the following treatments for male AGA in decreasing rank of efficacy: platelet-rich plasma (PRP), low-level laser therapy (LLLT), 0.5 mg dutasteride, 1 mg finasteride, 5% minoxidil, 2% minoxidil, and bimatoprost. For female AGA the following were identified in decreasing rank of efficacy: LLLT, 5% minoxidil, and 2% minoxidil. The evidence quality of the highest ranked therapies, for male and female AGA, was judged to be low.
CONCLUSIONS
While newer treatments like LLLT may be more efficacious than more traditional therapies like 5% minoxidil, the efficacy of the more recent treatment modalities needs to be further validated by future RCTs.
Topics: Alopecia; Female; Finasteride; Humans; Male; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32250713
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1749547 -
International Journal of Dermatology Aug 2020Topical minoxidil has been used for almost 40 years to treat alopecia. There is growing evidence supporting off-label use of low-dose oral minoxidil.
BACKGROUND
Topical minoxidil has been used for almost 40 years to treat alopecia. There is growing evidence supporting off-label use of low-dose oral minoxidil.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review evaluating the use of oral minoxidil for all types of alopecia.
METHODS
A primary literature search was conducted using PubMed in May 2019, utilizing the search term "oral minoxidil AND (hair loss OR alopecia OR baldness)". Reviews, non-English studies, and articles concerning only topical minoxidil were excluded.
RESULTS
Ten articles were included for review comprising a total 19,218 patients (215 women and 19,003 men). Oral minoxidil dose ranged from 0.25 to 5 mg daily to twice daily. The strongest evidence existed for androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata (AA), with 61-100% and 18-82.4% of patients demonstrating objective clinical improvement. Successful treatment of female pattern hair loss, chronic telogen effluvium, monilethrix, and permanent chemotherapy-induced alopecia was also reported. The most common adverse effects with oral minoxidil included hypertrichosis and postural hypotension.
CONCLUSION
Oral minoxidil is a safe and successful treatment of androgenic alopecia and AA. In addition to its therapeutic benefits, practical advantages over topical minoxidil stem from improved patient compliance.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Female; Humans; Hypertrichosis; Male; Minoxidil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32516434
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.14933 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Jan 2023The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata, measured by change in Severity of Alopecia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata, measured by change in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library. All studies investigating the efficacy of treatments for alopecia areata were included. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with alopecia areata achieving 30%, 50%, 75%, 90% and 100% improvement in SALT score after treatment with a Janus kinase inhibitor. A meta-analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials investigating Janus kinase inhibitors. A total of 37 studies matched the inclusion criteria and were included. Meta-analysis was performed based on 5 randomized studies. Regarding patients with alopecia areata defined as ≥ 50% scalp hair loss, baricitinib 4 mg once daily demonstrated the highest efficacy. However, among patients with alopecia areata defined as a SALT score ≥ 50, oral deuruxolitinib 12 mg twice daily demonstrated the highest efficacy. Deuruxolitinib and baricitinib appear to be promising drugs for the treatment of alopecia areata. However, the response depends on the dosage of the drug. More randomized trials, with identical inclusion criteria and dose and duration of treatment, are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Alopecia; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36695751
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v103.4536