-
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic... Jul 2016Finasteride and dutasteride, both 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, are considered first-line treatment for androgenetic hair loss in men and used increasingly in women. In... (Review)
Review
Finasteride and dutasteride, both 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, are considered first-line treatment for androgenetic hair loss in men and used increasingly in women. In each case, patients are expected to take the medications indefinitely despite the lack of research regarding long-term adverse effects. Concerns regarding the adverse effects of these medications has led the United States National Institutes of Health to add a link for post-finasteride syndrome to its Genetic and Rare Disease Information Center. Herein, the authors report the results of a literature search reviewing adverse events of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors as they relate to prostate cancer, psychological effects, sexual health, and use in women. Several large studies found no increase in incidence of prostate cancer, a possible increase of high-grade cancer when detected, and no change in survival rate with 5-alpha reductase inhibitor use. Currently, there is no direct link between 5-alpha reductase inhibitor use and depression; however, several small studies have led to depression being listed as a side effect on the medication packaging. Sexual effects including erectile dysfunction and decreased libido and ejaculate were reported in as many as 3.4 to 15.8 percent of men. To date, there are very few studies evaluating 5-alpha reductase inhibitor use in women. Risks include birth defects in male fetuses if used in pregnancy, decreased libido, headache, gastrointestinal discomfort, and isolated reports of changes in menstruation, acne, and dizziness. Overall, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors were well-tolerated in both men and women, but not without risk, highlighting the importance of patient education prior to treatment.
PubMed: 27672412
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
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 -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2019We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dutasteride and finasteride in treating men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) during a 24-week...
AIM
We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dutasteride and finasteride in treating men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) during a 24-week treatment cycle.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials of dutasteride and finasteride for treating AGA were searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The data were calculated using Rev Man v5.3.0. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.
RESULTS
Three articles including 576 participants which compared dutasteride with finasteride were selected for our analysis. The mean change in total hair count (mean difference [MD], 28.57; 95% CI, 18.75-38.39; <0.00001), investigator's assessment of global photographs for the vertex (MD, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.13-1.23; =0.02) and frontal (MD, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.13-1.13; =0.01) views, panel global photographic assessment for the vertex (MD, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.24; <0.00001) and frontal (MD, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.18-0.31; <0.00001) views, and subjects' assessment (MD, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.18-0.94; =0.003) suggested that dutasteride provided a better efficacy in treating men with AGA compared with finasteride. With regard to the assessment of safety, altered libido (=0.54), erectile dysfunction (=0.07), and ejaculation disorders (=0.58), dutasteride did not show a significant difference compared with finasteride.
CONCLUSION
Dutasteride seems to provide a better efficacy compared with finasteride in treating AGA. The two drugs appear to show similar rates of adverse reactions, especially in sexual dysfunction.
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Adult; Alopecia; Dutasteride; Finasteride; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Safety; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 30863034
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S192435 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Mar 2022Although the efficacy and safety of monotherapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have been established clinically, the efficacy and safety of...
BACKGROUND
Although the efficacy and safety of monotherapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have been established clinically, the efficacy and safety of dutasteride and finasteride have not been compared. The aim was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two drugs in the treatment of BPH to provide medical evidence for clinical treatment.
METHODS
A search of relevant articles was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, China Academic Journals Full-text Database (CJFD), Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of finasteride (control group) with that of dutasteride (experimental group) in the treatment of BPH with respect to the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), prostate volume (PV), quality of life (QOL), serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after medication were strictly evaluated and considered for inclusion. Rev Man 5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 8 RCTs were included, with a total of 2,116, patients. The meta-analysis showed that compared with finasteride, dutasteride can effectively improve the Qmax of patients with BPH [mean difference (MD) =0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.01, 0.63); P=0.04]. There was no significant difference in reducing IPSS [MD =0.13; 95% CI: (-0.55, 0.82); P=0.70], improving PV [MD =-1.25; 95% CI: (-3.30, 0.79); P=0.23], reducing QOL [MD =-0.44; 95% CI: (-0.93, 0.05); P=0.08] and serum PSA level [MD =-0.04; 95% CI: (-0.15, 0.07); P=0.50], and the occurrence of ADRs [relative risk (RR) =-0.01; 95% CI: (-0.05, 0.04); P=0.72], there was no significant difference.
DISCUSSION
Dutasteride is better than finasteride in improving the Qmax of patients with BPH. There was no statistically significant difference in symptoms, PV, PSA, QOL, or adverse reactions. Dutasteride is an effective and safe treatment for BPH. Due to the limitations of the methodological quality and sample size of the included studies, this conclusion needs to be verified by stratified RCTS with high volumes and long follow-up times.
PubMed: 35402192
DOI: 10.21037/tau-22-58 -
The Canadian Journal of Hospital... 2017Finasteride and dutasteride are competitive inhibitors of 5α-reductase enzymes and are commonly used to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Finasteride and dutasteride are competitive inhibitors of 5α-reductase enzymes and are commonly used to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of finasteride and dutasteride in terms of clinically important outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search was performed using the search terms "prostatic hyperplasia", "prostatic hypertrophy", "dutasteride", "finasteride", "quality of life", "adverse drug reaction", and "mortality". The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases were searched from inception to December 2015.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, and systematic reviews comparing finasteride with dutasteride, either as monotherapy or in combination with α-blockers, for treatment of men with BPH were included. The outcomes of interest included need for prostate-related surgery, episodes of acute urinary retention, withdrawals due to adverse events, number of patients experiencing serious adverse events, mortality, and sexual dysfunction.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four studies involving a total of 1879 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in any of the clinically important outcomes examined: for prostate-related surgery, odds ratio (OR) 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-22.24); for episodes of acute urinary retention, OR 1.47 (95% CI 0.68-3.19); for number of withdrawals due to adverse events, OR 1.10 (95% CI 0.68-1.75); for total number of patients experiencing adverse events, OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78-1.14); for number of patients experiencing serious adverse events, OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.87-1.97); and for sexual dysfunction, OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.08).
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that either finasteride or dutasteride offers an advantage in efficacy or safety over the other, in terms of clinically important outcomes.
PubMed: 28487578
DOI: 10.4212/cjhp.v70i2.1643 -
Age and Ageing Sep 2015we aimed to systematically review drugs to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) regularly used in older persons to classify appropriate and inappropriate drugs... (Review)
Review
Appropriateness of oral drugs for long-term treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in older persons: results of a systematic literature review and international consensus validation process (LUTS-FORTA 2014).
AIM
we aimed to systematically review drugs to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) regularly used in older persons to classify appropriate and inappropriate drugs based on efficacy, safety and tolerability by using the Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA) classification.
METHODS
to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of drugs used for treatment of LUTS in older persons, a systematic review was performed. Papers on clinical trials and summaries of individual product characteristics were analysed regarding efficacy and safety in older persons (≥65 years). The most frequently used drugs were selected based on current prescription data. An interdisciplinary international expert panel assessed the drugs in a Delphi process.
RESULTS
for the 16 drugs included here, a total of 896 citations were identified; of those, only 25 reported clinical trials with explicit data on, or solely performed in older people, underlining the lack of evidence in older people for drug treatment of LUTS. No drug was rated at the FORTA-A-level (indispensable). Only three were assigned to FORTA B (beneficial): dutasteride, fesoterodine and finasteride. The majority was rated FORTA C (questionable): darifenacin, mirabegron, extended release oxybutynin, silodosin, solifenacin, tadalafil, tamsulosin, tolterodine and trospium. FORTA D (avoid) was assigned to alfuzosin, doxazosin, immediate release oxybutynin, propiverine and terazosin.
CONCLUSIONS
dutasteride, fesoterodine and finasteride were classified as beneficial in older persons or frail elderly people (FORTA B). For most drugs, in particular those from the group of α-blockers and antimuscarinics, use in this group seems questionable (FORTA C) or should be avoided (FORTA D).
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Administration, Oral; Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Age Factors; Aged; Aging; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Muscarinic Antagonists; Patient Selection; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Urological Agents
PubMed: 26104505
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afv077