-
The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic... Aug 2020Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited... (Review)
Review
Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited treatment modalities available. The use of natural ingredients for nonscarring hair loss has gained popularity among patients, but has not been previously studied for CCCA. We sought to review clinical studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients in the treatment of CCCA. Systematic searches of the PubMed and SCOPUS databases were performed in March 2018 using various ingredient names and the terms , and . Specific ingredients included azelaic acid, peppermint oil, pumpkin seed oil, garlic supplements/shampoo, Black castor oil, jojoba oil, argan oil, olive oil, horsetail plant oil, lavender oil, coconut oil, chamomile oil, thyme oil, tea tree oil, sulfur oil, menthol, and rosemary oil. Two reviewers independently screened titles, leading to the selection of eight clinical studies. A review of the literature revealed no clinical trials that evaluated the treatment of CCCA with natural ingredients. Despite limited evidence-based research for CCCA, several natural ingredients showed efficacy in alopecia areata, androgenetic alopecia, and psoriatic alopecia. Upon review of the literature, there were no randomized, controlled studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients or aromatherapy in the management of CCCA. Despite this, several botanical and natural ingredients do show promise in treating androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata. More clinical studies need to be performed to evaluate treatment options as a whole, including natural modalities, to better serve these patients.
PubMed: 33178378
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic... Jan 2021Microneedling is a relatively safe therapeutic procedure used to treat many dermatological conditions, including acne vulgaris, alopecia, melasma and other pigmentary... (Review)
Review
Microneedling is a relatively safe therapeutic procedure used to treat many dermatological conditions, including acne vulgaris, alopecia, melasma and other pigmentary disorders, as well as to promote skin rejuvenation, rhytide reduction, and scar remodeling. Given its popularity among patients and increasing use in the clinic and at home, we aim to explain the adverse effects associated with microneedling procedures. We reviewed the current literature describing microneedling and the complications that may accompany this therapeutic procedure. PubMed was searched to identify studies that involved microneedling procedures using the standard roller microneedling, stamp microneedling, pen-type microneedling, and/or fractional radiofrequency microneedling devices. The resulting publications included clinical trials, retrospective studies, and case reports, which were then thoroughly reviewed for description of potential or observed complications that arose secondary to the microneedling procedure. In this systematic review, a total of 51 articles were reviewed, which included 1,029 patients who received microneedling procedures for a variety of different skin conditions. Overall, this review found that microneedling, regardless of the specific device used, is a relatively safe procedure with minimal adverse effects, including, but not limited to, expected erythema, pain, edema, and temporary skin irritation. Microneedling has become an attractive treatment option for many patients with dermatological conditions. We advise that clinicians and patients be informed about the adverse side effects associated with microneedling so that the risk of preventable complications can be reduced or avoided.
PubMed: 33584968
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of...
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the area of supportive care in cancer and/or PBM clinical application and dosimetry. This article is informational in nature. As with all clinical materials, this paper should be used with a clear understanding that continued research and practice could result in new insights and recommendations. The review reflects the collective opinion and, as such, does not necessarily represent the opinion of any individual author. In no event shall the authors be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the proposed protocols.
OBJECTIVE
This position paper reviews the potential prophylactic and therapeutic effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on side effects of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable body of evidence supporting the efficacy of PBM for preventing oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), CT, or HSCT. This could enhance patients' quality of life, adherence to the prescribed cancer therapy, and treatment outcomes while reducing the cost of cancer care.
METHODS
A literature review on PBM effectiveness and dosimetry considerations for managing certain complications of cancer therapy were conducted. A systematic review was conducted when numerous randomized controlled trials were available. Results were presented and discussed at an international consensus meeting at the World Association of photobiomoduLation Therapy (WALT) meeting in 2018 that included world expert oncologists, radiation oncologists, oral oncologists, and oral medicine professionals, physicists, engineers, and oncology researchers. The potential mechanism of action of PBM and evidence of PBM efficacy through reported outcomes for individual indications were assessed.
RESULTS
There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of PBM for preventing OM in certain cancer patient populations, as recently outlined by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). Building on these, the WALT group outlines evidence and prescribed PBM treatment parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for radiodermatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, trismus, mucosal and bone necrosis, lymphedema, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, oral and dermatologic chronic graft-versus-host disease, voice/speech alterations, peripheral neuropathy, and late fibrosis amongst cancer survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is robust evidence for using PBM to prevent and treat a broad range of complications in cancer care. Specific clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based expert consensus recommendations are provided. These recommendations are aimed at improving the clinical utilization of PBM therapy in supportive cancer care and promoting research in this field. It is anticipated these guidelines will be revised periodically.
PubMed: 36110957
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.927685 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Jun 2021Alopecia areata is the third most common cause of dermatology consultations in children but the treatment of paediatric alopecia areata remains challenging. A systematic... (Review)
Review
Alopecia areata is the third most common cause of dermatology consultations in children but the treatment of paediatric alopecia areata remains challenging. A systematic review of the literature about the treatment of alopecia areata in children (≤18 years old) was performed on 11 May 2020 by searching the PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO databases. The terms used for the search were: 'alopecia areata', 'alopecia totalis' or 'alopecia universalis' combined with 'paediatric', 'children' or 'childhood'. A total of 89 articles were included in final evaluation. The most commonly assessed treatment options in paediatric alopecia areata were topical immunotherapy (response rate in monotherapy: 54%; 187/345) intralesional glucocorticosteroids (75%; 211/280), systemic glucocorticosteroids (73%; 102/140), and anthralin (42%; 31/74). Topical glucocorticosteroids (81%; 35/43), systemic Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (90%; 27/30), topical calcineurin inhibitors (42%; 8/19), topical JAK inhibitors (65%; 11/17), PUVA therapy (56%; 9/16) and 308-nm excimer laser (77%; 10/13) were also evaluated. Additionally, evaluation in smaller numbers of paediatric patients included methotrexate (100%; 10/10), topical minoxidil (44%; 4/9) and cyclosporine (83%; 5/6). There were limited data considering children with alopecia areata treated with azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, topical sildenafil, topical prostaglandin analogues, fractional carbon dioxide laser, leflunomide, mesalazine, apremilast, dupilumab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, botulinum toxin, and compound glycyrrhizin. On the basis of the limited data available glucocorticosteroids (systemic, intralesional or topical) and JAK inhibitors (systemic or topical) may be considered the best documented and most effective treatment options in alopecia areata in children. There are no sufficient paediatric data to compare treatment safety and relapse rates in these therapeutic modalities.
Topics: Adolescent; Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Leflunomide; Minoxidil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33630354
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17187 -
Dermatologic Therapy Jul 2020Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is the most common type of baldness affecting both men and women. Studies investigating combination therapies for AGA reported greater... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is the most common type of baldness affecting both men and women. Studies investigating combination therapies for AGA reported greater efficacy than monotherapy but without rigorous examination. The authors performed a meta-analysis and systemic review to further verify the evidence. To evaluate the effectiveness of three common combination therapies of minoxidil with finasteride, low-level laser light therapy (LLLT) or microneedling versus minoxidil monotherapy. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of combination therapies consisting of topical minoxidil for AGA through April 2020. Quality assessment and data analysis were performed by Review Manager 5.3. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria involving a total of 1172 AGA patients. We conducted meta-analysis for three groups of combined treatment separately, and all were superior to monotherapy in terms of global photographic assessment (P < .05). Combination of LLLT or microneedling with minoxidil also showed significant increase in hair count (P < .05) compared to monotherapy. The present study suggests that combination therapy could be an effective, safe and promising option for the treatment of AGA. However, more RCTs are needed to further investigate and confirm the efficacy of combined treatment.
Topics: Alopecia; Female; Finasteride; Hair; Humans; Male; Minoxidil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32478968
DOI: 10.1111/dth.13741