-
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 -
Archives of Dermatological Research Apr 2022There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light,...
There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light, laser diodes, radiofrequency, light-emitting diodes, and ultraviolet B phototherapy. The objective of this report is to evaluate the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for the treatment of skin conditions. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl was conducted on November 9, 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Original research articles that investigated the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for dermatologic use were included. Bibliographies were screened for additional relevant articles. Strength of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Clinical recommendations were then made based on the quality of the existing literature. After review, 37 clinical trials were included-19 were randomized controlled trials, 16 were case series, and 2 were non-randomized controlled trials. Ultimately, from our analysis, we recommend the home-based use of intense pulsed light for hair removal, laser diodes for androgenic alopecia, low power radiofrequency for rhytides and wrinkles, and light-emitting diodes for acne vulgaris. Trials investigating ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis revealed mixed evidence for home treatments compared to clinic treatments. All devices had favorable safety profiles with few significant adverse events. Limitations to our review include a limited number of randomized controlled trials as well as a lack of data on the long-term efficacy and safety of each device.
Topics: Cosmetic Techniques; Dermatology; Device Approval; Hair Removal; Humans; Laser Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Administration; Skin Aging
PubMed: 33938981
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0 -
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 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune disease characterized by non-scarring hair loss. With the widespread application of JAK inhibitors in immune-related diseases,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune disease characterized by non-scarring hair loss. With the widespread application of JAK inhibitors in immune-related diseases, attention is being given to their role in the treatment of AA. However, it is unclear which JAK inhibitors have a satisfactory or positive effect on AA. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AA.
METHODS
The network meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials as well as a small number of cohort studies. The differences in efficacy and safety between the treatment and control groups were compared.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials, two retrospective studies, and two prospective studies involving 1689 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib significantly improved the response rate of patients compared to placebo [MD = 8.44, 95% CI (3.63, 19.63)] and [MD = 6.94, 95% CI, (1.72, 28.05)],respectively. Oral baricitinib treatment significantly improved the response rate compared to non-oral JAK inhibitor treatment [MD=7.56, 95% CI (1.32,43.36)]. Oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly improved the complete response rate compared to placebo [MD = 12.21, 95% CI (3.41, 43.79)], [MD = 10.16, 95% CI (1.02, 101.54)], and [MD = 9.79, 95% CI, (1.29, 74.27)], respectively. In terms of safety, oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly reduced treatment-emergent adverse event rates compared with conventional steroid treatment [MD = 0.08, 95% CI (0.02, 0.42)], [MD = 0.14, 95% CI (0.04, 0.55)], and [MD = 0.35, 95% CI, (0.14, 0.88)], respectively.
CONCLUSION
Oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib are excellent options for the treatment of AA owing to their good efficacy and safety profiles. In contrast, non-oral JAK inhibitors do not appear to have satisfactory efficacy in treating AA. However, further studies are required to verify the optimal dose of JAK inhibitors for AA therapy.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37138884
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1152513 -
Drug Delivery and Translational Research Jun 2023Needle-free jet injectors are used for the intralesional treatment of various dermatological indications. However, a systematic review that evaluates the efficacy and... (Review)
Review
Needle-free jet injectors are used for the intralesional treatment of various dermatological indications. However, a systematic review that evaluates the efficacy and safety of these treatments has not been published. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of needle-free jet injections for dermatological indications and to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. An electronic literature search was conducted in April 2022. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on predefined criteria and performed a methodological quality assessment using the Cochrane Collaborations risk-of-bias 2.0 assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Thirty-seven articles were included, involving 1911 participants. Dermatological indications included scars, alopecia areata, hyperhidrosis, nail diseases, non-melanoma skin cancer, common warts, local anesthesia, and aesthetic indications. Keloids and other types of scars (hypertrophic, atrophic, and burn scars) were investigated most frequently (n = 7). The included studies reported favorable efficacy and safety outcomes for intralesional jet injector-assisted treatment with triamcinolone acetonide/hexacetonide, 5-fluorouracil, bleomycin, or hyaluronic acid. Two high-quality studies showed good efficacy and tolerability of intralesional jet injections with a combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone acetonide in hypertrophic scars and with saline in boxcar and rolling acne scars. No serious adverse reactions and good tolerability were reported in the included studies. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was low. Limited evidence suggests that needle-free jet injector-assisted intralesional treatment is efficacious and safe for hypertrophic and atrophic acne scars. More well-powered RCTs investigating the efficacy and safety of jet injector treatment in dermatology are warranted to make further evidence-based recommendations.
Topics: Humans; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Dermatology; Keloid; Fluorouracil; Acne Vulgaris; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36884194
DOI: 10.1007/s13346-023-01295-x -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2022Alexithymia is a psychological construct that describes one's difficulty in understanding and describing their own emotions as well as differentiating feelings from... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alexithymia is a psychological construct that describes one's difficulty in understanding and describing their own emotions as well as differentiating feelings from bodily signals of arousal. In the general population, alexithymia's prevalence is approximately 10%. Alexithymia may act as a triggering factor for many medical and psychiatric disorders. In patients with physical disease, alexithymia's prevalence reaches up to 63%. Additionally, alexithymia is associated with worse outcomes and heightened psychosocial comorbidities.
OBJECTIVE
This review continues where an earlier review (Willemsen, 2008) left off to (1) clarify alexithymia's prevalence in dermatology patients and (2) further investigate alexithymia's impact on disease burden, psychosocial comorbidities, and treatment.
METHODS
Systematic searches on alexithymia and dermatologic conditions were conducted using PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases from March 8, 2021, to March 12, 2021. Data from eligible publications, which were full-text, clinical studies published after September 1, 2008, and available in English, were extracted by two medical students and summarized.
RESULTS
Despite a small number of publications (n = 37), data showed a markedly greater prevalence and severity of alexithymia in patients with alopecia, vitiligo, psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, atopic dermatitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, and primary focal hyperhidrosis compared to healthy controls. Further, data consistently demonstrate a complex interplay between alexithymia, disease burden, and psychosocial comorbidity.
CONCLUSIONS
Identifying and addressing alexithymia in dermatology patients may improve treatment outcomes, associated comorbidities, and health-related quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Affective Symptoms; Quality of Life; Psoriasis; Comorbidity; Prevalence
PubMed: 35636409
DOI: 10.1159/000524736 -
Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical... Sep 2021Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease and presents a major public health burden worldwide. Recent observational studies revealed the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease and presents a major public health burden worldwide. Recent observational studies revealed the potential association between atopic dermatitis with autoimmune disorders. However, there is no meta-analysis of the prevalence or incidence of autoimmune diseases in atopic dermatitis. Therefore, considering the potential clinical implications of these associations, we aimed to assess the risk of autoimmune diseases in patients with atopic dermatitis using this method.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October, 2020. Observational studies which provided estimate effects with 95% CI or raw data were included. The quality of selected studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Odds ratio and relative risks were pooled using a random effects model and expressed with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Fourteen observational studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The random-effects meta-analysis of case-control and cross-sectional studies showed a significant association of atopic dermatitis with mutiple autoimmune diseases, including alopecia areata, celiac disease, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systematic lupus erythematosus, ulcerative colitis and vitiligo. Furthermore, pooling of the results of cohort studies showed that patients with atopic dermatitis were more likely to develop these autoimmune diseases.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis showed that patients with atopic dermatitis were at higher risk of multiple autoimmune diseases including alopecia areata, celiac disease, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systematic lupus erythematosus, ulcerative colitis and vitiligo. It is important for early detection of the affected group so that timely management can be initiated. Dermatologists and allergists should be aware of the autoimmune diseases in patients with atopic dermatitis and develop interventions if necessary. Also, limited by the present research, we still require more large-scale studies to further establish the association between atopic dermatitis and autoimmune diseases.
PubMed: 34563251
DOI: 10.1186/s13223-021-00597-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Morphea (morphoea) is an immune-mediated disease in which excess synthesis and deposition of collagen in the skin and underlying connective tissues results in hardened...
BACKGROUND
Morphea (morphoea) is an immune-mediated disease in which excess synthesis and deposition of collagen in the skin and underlying connective tissues results in hardened cutaneous areas. Morphea has different clinical features according to the subtype and stage of evolution of the disease. There is currently no consensus on optimal interventions for morphea.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for people with any form of morphea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and five trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of topical, intralesional, or systemic treatments (isolated or combined) in anyone who has been clinically diagnosed by a medical practitioner with any form of morphea. Eligible controls were placebo, no intervention, any other treatment, or different doses or duration of a treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement of disease activity and improvement of disease damage. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials, with a total of 429 randomised participants, aged between 3 and 76 years. There were juvenile and adult participants; over half were female, and the majority had circumscribed morphea, followed by linear scleroderma. The settings of the studies (where described) included a dermatologic centre, a national laboratory centre, paediatric rheumatology and dermatology centres, and a university hospital or medical centre.The studies evaluated heterogenous therapies for different types of morphea, covering a wide range of comparisons. We were unable to conduct any meta-analyses. Seven studies investigated topical medications, two evaluated intralesional medications, and five investigated systemic medications. The study duration ranged from seven weeks to 15 months from baseline.We present here results for our primary outcomes for our four key comparisons. All of these results are based on low-quality evidence.The included studies were at high risk of performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias.Global improvement of disease activity or damage after treatment may be higher with oral methotrexate (15 mg/m², maximum 20 mg, once a week, for 12 months or until disease flare) plus oral prednisone (1 mg/kg a day, maximum of 50 mg, in a single morning dose, for three months, and one month with gradually decreased dose until discontinuation) than with placebo plus oral prednisone in children and adolescents with active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed) (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 4.45; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3; 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT); 70 participants, all juvenile). This outcome was measured 12 months from the start of treatment or until flare of the disease. Data were not available separately for each morphea type. There may be little or no difference in the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event with oral methotrexate (26/46) or placebo (11/24) (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.04; 1 RCT; 70 participants assessed during the 12-month follow-up). Adverse events related to methotrexate included alopecia, nausea, headache, fatigue and hepatotoxicity, whilst adverse events related to prednisone (given in both groups) included weight gain (more than 5% of body weight) and striae rubrae.One three-armed RCT compared the following treatments: medium-dose (50 J/cm²) UVA-1; low-dose (20 J/cm²) UVA-1; and narrowband UVB phototherapy. There may be little or no difference between treatments in global improvement of disease activity or damage, as assessed through the modified skin score (where high values represent a worse outcome): medium-dose UVA-1 phototherapy versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD 1.60, 95% CI -1.70 to 4.90 (44 participants); narrowband UVB phototherapy versus medium-dose UVA-1 group: MD -1.70, 95% CI -5.27 to 1.87 (35 participants); and narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.29 (45 participants). This RCT included children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea), who received phototherapy five times a week, for eight weeks. Outcomes were measured at eight weeks from the start of treatment.Safety data, measured throughout treatment, from the same RCT (62 participants) showed that treatment with UVA-1 phototherapy may cause mild tanning compared to narrowband UVB: narrowband UVB versus medium-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42; 35 participants; narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41; 45 participants. However, there may be no difference in the number of participants reporting mild tanning when comparing medium and low dose UVA-1 phototherapy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 44 participants). Transient erythema was reported in three participants with narrowband UVB and no participants in the low- or medium-dose UVA-1 groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo plus oral prednisone, oral methotrexate plus oral prednisone may improve disease activity or damage in juvenile active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed), but there may be a slightly increased chance of experiencing at least one adverse event.When medium-dose UVA-1 (50 J/cm²), low-dose UVA-1 (20 J/cm²), and narrowband UVB were compared against each other in treating children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma, generalised morphea and mixed morphea), there may be little or no difference between these treatments on global improvement of disease activity or damage. UVA-1 phototherapy may cause more mild tanning than narrowband UVB, but there may be no difference between medium- and low-dose UVA-1 phototherapy. These results are based on low-quality evidence.Limitations of data and analyses include risk of bias and imprecision (small number of participants or events and wide confidence intervals). We encourage multicentre RCTs to increase sample size and evaluate, with validated tools, different treatment responses according to the subtypes of morphea and age groups.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Phototherapy; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scleroderma, Localized; Young Adult
PubMed: 31309547
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005027.pub5 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Mar 2021Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are a subset of T cells responsible for the regulation of immune responses, thereby maintaining immune homeostasis and providing immune... (Review)
Review
Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are a subset of T cells responsible for the regulation of immune responses, thereby maintaining immune homeostasis and providing immune tolerance to both self and non-self-antigens. An increasing number of studies revealed Treg numbers and functions in a variety of autoimmune diseases. Treg deficiency can cause the development of several autoimmune skin diseases including vitiligo, alopecia areata, pemphigoid and pemphigus, psoriasis, and systemic sclerosis. Many clinical trials have been performed for autoimmune conditions using polyclonal Tregs, but efficiency can be significantly improved using antigen-specific Tregs engineered using T cell receptor (TCR) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) constructs. In this review, we systematically reviewed altered frequencies, impaired functions, and phenotypic features of Tregs in autoimmune skin conditions. We also summarized new advances in TCR and CAR based antigen-specific Tregs tested both in animal models and in clinics. The advantages and limitations of each approach were carefully discussed emphasizing possible clinical relevance to patients with autoimmune skin diseases. Moreover, we have reviewed potential approaches for engineering antigen-specific Tregs, and strategies for overcoming possible hurdles in clinical applications. Thereby, antigen-specific Tregs can be infused using autologous adoptive cell transfer to restore Treg numbers and to provide local immune tolerance for autoimmune skin disorders.
Topics: Animals; Autoimmune Diseases; Humans; Immune Tolerance; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell; Skin Diseases; T-Lymphocytes, Regulatory
PubMed: 33476816
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102761 -
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