-
Journal of the American Academy of... Jun 2022Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune, nonscarring hair loss disorder with slightly greater prevalence in children than adults. Various treatment modalities exist;... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune, nonscarring hair loss disorder with slightly greater prevalence in children than adults. Various treatment modalities exist; however, their evidence in pediatric AA patients is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence of current treatment modalities for pediatric AA.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review on the PubMed database in October 2019 for all published articles involving patients <18 years old. Articles discussing AA treatment in pediatric patients were included, as were articles discussing both pediatric and adult patients, if data on individual pediatric patients were available.
RESULTS
Inclusion criteria were met by 122 total reports discussing 1032 patients. Reports consisted of 2 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective comparative cohorts, 83 case series, 2 case-control studies, and 31 case reports. Included articles assessed the use of aloe, apremilast, anthralin, anti-interferon gamma antibodies, botulinum toxin, corticosteroids, contact immunotherapies, cryotherapy, hydroxychloroquine, hypnotherapy, imiquimod, Janus kinase inhibitors, laser and light therapy, methotrexate, minoxidil, phototherapy, psychotherapy, prostaglandin analogs, sulfasalazine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical nitrogen mustard, and ustekinumab.
LIMITATIONS
English-only articles with full texts were used. Manuscripts with adult and pediatric data were only incorporated if individual-level data for pediatric patients were provided. No meta-analysis was performed.
CONCLUSION
Topical corticosteroids are the preferred first-line treatment for pediatric AA, as they hold the highest level of evidence, followed by contact immunotherapy. More clinical trials and comparative studies are needed to further guide management of pediatric AA and to promote the potential use of pre-existing, low-cost, and novel therapies, including Janus kinase inhibitors.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 33940103
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.04.077 -
International Journal of Trichology 2020Patients with major presentations of alopecia experience physically harmful effects and psychological comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety. Oral minoxidil (OM)... (Review)
Review
Patients with major presentations of alopecia experience physically harmful effects and psychological comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety. Oral minoxidil (OM) has been suggested by dermatologists as a potential remedy; however, its effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review aims to collate published studies and to analyze the effect of OM among patients diagnosed with any type of alopecia. For this systematic review, Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Information System were searched for relevant studies from inception to September 21, 2019. Of 1960 studies retrieved in several electronic databases and three additional records identified though reference list from potentially eligible studies, nine studies (one randomized controlled trial and eight nonrandomized controlled trials) met the requirements and were used in our analysis. Although we found positive effects in favor of OM, this should be interpreted cautiously due to very low quality of the evidence of outcomes in the selected studies. Definitive conclusions are not possible without high-quality trials. This review has highlighted the absence of high-quality randomized controlled trials evaluating OM in the treatment of various types of alopecia. Given the mild adverse events of OM, future studies should also analyze doses and duration to maximize efficacy and decrease side effects.
PubMed: 33376283
DOI: 10.4103/ijt.ijt_19_20 -
Dermatology and Therapy Jan 2022Microneedling (MN) is a minimally invasive procedure involving the induction of percutaneous wounds with medical-grade needles. In this literature review, we investigate... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Microneedling (MN) is a minimally invasive procedure involving the induction of percutaneous wounds with medical-grade needles. In this literature review, we investigate clinical data on MN for the treatment of hair loss disorders.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted through PubMed up to November 2021 to identify original articles evaluating the use of MN on hair loss disorders. The database was searched using the following keywords: "microneedling," "micro needling," "micro needle," "microneedle," "needle," "dermaroller" and "alopecia," "hair loss," "alopecia," "areata," "cicatricial," or "effluvium," RESULTS: A total of 22 clinical studies featuring 1127 subjects met our criteria for inclusion. Jadad scores ranged from 1 to 3, with a mean of 2. As an adjunct therapy, MN improved hair parameters across genders and a range of hair loss types, severities, needling devices, needling depths of 0.50-2.50 mm, and session frequencies from once weekly to monthly. Across 17 investigations totaling 911 androgenic alopecia (AGA) subjects, MN improved hair parameters when paired with 5% minoxidil, growth factor solutions, and/or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) topicals, or when introduced to subjects whose hair count changes had plateaued for ≥ 6 months on other treatments. Across four investigations on 201 alopecia areata (AA) subjects, MN improved hair parameters as a standalone therapy versus cryotherapy, as an adjunct to 5-aminolevulinic acid and photodynamic therapy, and equivalently when paired with topical PRP versus carbon dioxide laser therapy with topical PRP. Across 657 subjects receiving MN, no serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinical studies demonstrate generally favorable results for MN as an adjunct therapy for AGA and AA. However, data are of relatively low quality. Significant heterogeneity exists across interventions, comparators, and MN procedures. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are recommended to discern the effects of MN as a standalone and adjunct therapy, determine best practices, and establish long-term safety.
PubMed: 34854067
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-021-00653-2 -
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology : JDD Apr 2018Currently, only topical minoxidil (MNX) and oral finasteride (FNS) are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Currently, only topical minoxidil (MNX) and oral finasteride (FNS) are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. Although FNS is efficacious for hair regrowth, its systemic use is associated with side effects limiting long-term utilization. Exploring topical FNS as an alternative treatment regimen may prove promising.
METHODS
A search was conducted to identify studies regarding human in vivo topical FNS treatment efficacy including clinically relevant case reports, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and prospective studies.
RESULTS
Seven articles were included in this systematic review. In all studies, there was significant decrease in the rate of hair loss, increase in total and terminal hair counts, and positive hair growth assessment with topical FNS. Both scalp and plasma DHT significantly decreased with application of topical FNS; no changes in serum testosterone were noted.
CONCLUSION
Preliminary results on the use of topical FNS are limited, but safe and promising. Continued research into drug-delivery, ideal topical concentration and application frequency, side effects, and use for other alopecias will help to elucidate the full extent of topical FNS' use.
J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(4):457-463.
.Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Administration, Topical; Alopecia; Drug Delivery Systems; Female; Finasteride; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29601622
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Nov 2023Finasteride and minoxidil are medicaments commonly prescribed for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPA), hypertension, and/or androgenetic alopecia (AGA). The...
Finasteride and minoxidil are medicaments commonly prescribed for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPA), hypertension, and/or androgenetic alopecia (AGA). The mechanism of action of finasteride is based on the interference in androgenic pathways, which may lead to fertility-related disorders in men. Minoxidil, however, can act in multiple ways, and there is no consensus that its use can adversely affect male fertility. Since finasteride and minoxidil could be risk factors for male fertility, we aimed to compare their impact on the two reproductive organs testis and epididymis of adult murine models, besides testis/epididymis-related cells, and describe the mechanism of action involved. For such, we used the PRISMA guideline. We included 31 original studies from a structured search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. For in vivo studies, the bias analysis and the quality of the studies were assessed as described by SYRCLE (Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation). We concluded that finasteride and minoxidil act as hormone disruptors, causing oxidative stress and morphological changes mainly in the testis. Our results also revealed that finasteride treatment could be more harmful to male reproductive health because it was more associated with reproductive injuries, including damage to the epididymis, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, and reduced semen volume. Thus, this study contributes to the global understanding of the mechanisms by which medicaments used for alopecia might lead to male reproductive disorders. We hope that our critical analysis expedites clinical research and reduces methodological bias. The registration number on the Prospero platform is CRD42022313347.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Animals; Mice; Minoxidil; Finasteride; Alopecia; Administration, Oral; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37805090
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2023.116710 -
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