-
Archives of Dermatological Research Jul 2023Treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) can help lower the risk of eventual skin cancer and address field pre-cancerization. This review compares the different therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) can help lower the risk of eventual skin cancer and address field pre-cancerization. This review compares the different therapeutic options for actinic keratosis. Databases used include Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2019. Randomized control trials that were related to any approved or recognized treatment for actinic keratosis were included. 1186 studies were found, of which 80 with 6748 patients were included in the analysis. A network meta-analysis was not possible due to interstudy heterogeneity. The greatest degree of improvement was seen with photodynamic therapy (PDT) used adjunctively with other modalities, but this was not significantly different compared to other treatments. PDT, cryotherapy, imiquimod, ingenol mebutate (IMB), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and ablative fractional laser (AFXL), were all non-inferior to one another in terms of percent clearance of AKs, but the lowest rates of clearance were seen with diclofenac sodium. When results were substratified by body site, 5-FU, combination PDT and combination 5-FU with calcipotriol were the most beneficial for AKs on the head and neck, although they often caused the highest proportion of initial side effects. Absence of randomized control trials for surgical treatments and non-ablative laser limits comparison of these treatments to other modalities. Limitations include the lack of standardized outcome reporting limited the comparability of results across trials. The results of this analysis do not account for individual patient risk or cumulative risk for development of skin cancer. At present, PDT, cryotherapy, imiquimod, IMB, 5-FU, TCA, AFXL, and combination treatments are similarly efficacious in reducing AKs in immunocompetent patients.Registration: N/A.
Topics: Humans; Keratosis, Actinic; Imiquimod; Photochemotherapy; Treatment Outcome; Skin Neoplasms; Fluorouracil
PubMed: 36454335
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-022-02490-5 -
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 -
Safety and Efficacy of Long-Acting Injectable Agents for HIV-1: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR Public Health and Surveillance Jul 2023HIV-1 infection continues to affect global health. Although antiretrovirals can reduce the viral load or prevent HIV-1 infection, current drugs require daily oral use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
HIV-1 infection continues to affect global health. Although antiretrovirals can reduce the viral load or prevent HIV-1 infection, current drugs require daily oral use with a high adherence level. Long-acting antiretrovirals (LA-ARVs) significantly improve medication adherence and are essential for HIV-1 prophylaxis and therapy.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB-LA) and long-acting rilpivirine (RPV-LA) in the prevention and treatment of HIV-1 infection.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from database inception to November 12, 2022. We included studies that reported efficacy and safety data on LA-ARV intervention in people living with HIV and excluded reviews, animal studies, and articles with missing or duplicate data. Virological suppression was defined as plasma viral load <50 copies/mL 6 months after antiviral therapy initiation. We extracted outcomes for analysis and expressed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. Depending on the heterogeneity assessment, a fixed- or random-effects model was used for data synthesis. We performed subgroup analyses of the partial safety and efficacy outcomes of CAB-LA+RPV-LA. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework.
RESULTS
We included 12 trials comprising 10,957 individuals, of which 7 were prevention trials and 5 were treatment trials. CAB-LA and RPV-LA demonstrated safety profiles comparable with those of the placebo in terms of adverse event-related withdrawal. Moreover, the efficacy data showed that CAB-LA had a better effect on HIV-1 prevention than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (17/5161, 0.33% vs 75/5129, 1.46%; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.61; I=70%). Although CAB-LA+RPV-LA had more drug-related adverse events (556/681, 81.6% vs 37/598, 6.2%; RR 12.50, 95% CI 3.98-39.23; I=85%), a mild or moderate injection site reaction was the most common reaction, and its frequency decreased over time. The efficacy of CAB-LA+RPV-LA was comparable with that of daily oral drugs at 48 and 96 weeks (1302/1424, 91.43% vs 915/993, 92.2%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.02; I=0%), and a high level of virological suppression of 80.9% (186/230) was maintained even after 5 years of LA-ARV use. Similar efficacy outcomes were observed in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients (849/911, 93.2% vs 615/654, 94%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.02; I=0%). According to the questionnaires, more than 85% of people living with HIV favored LA-ARVs.
CONCLUSIONS
LA-ARVs showed favorable safety profiles for both the prevention and treatment of HIV-1 infection and were well tolerated. CAB-LA has more satisfactory efficacy than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine, significantly reducing the rate of HIV-1 infection. CAB-LA+RPV-LA maintains virological suppression for a long time and may be a viable switching strategy with enhanced public health benefits by reducing transmission. However, further trials are required to confirm the efficacy of these drugs.
Topics: Humans; Anti-HIV Agents; Emtricitabine; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Tenofovir
PubMed: 37498645
DOI: 10.2196/46767 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Jul 2023Pancreatic cancer often presents as locally advanced (LAPC) or borderline resectable (BRPC). Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is recommended as initial treatment. It is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine-based Chemotherapy for Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Multi-institutional, Patient-Level, Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer often presents as locally advanced (LAPC) or borderline resectable (BRPC). Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is recommended as initial treatment. It is currently unclear what chemotherapy should be preferred for patients with BRPC or LAPC.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and multi-institutional meta-analysis of patient-level data regarding the use of initial systemic therapy for BRPC and LAPC. Outcomes were reported separately for tumor entity and by chemotherapy regimen including FOLFIRINOX (FIO) or gemcitabine-based.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies comprising 2930 patients were analyzed for overall survival (OS) calculated from the beginning of systemic treatment. OS for patients with BRPC was 22.0 months with FIO, 16.9 months with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (Gem/nab), 21.6 months with gemcitabine/cisplatin or oxaliplatin or docetaxel or capecitabine (GemX), and 10 months with gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem-mono) (p < 0.0001). In patients with LAPC, OS also was higher with FIO (17.1 months) compared with Gem/nab (12.5 months), GemX (12.3 months), and Gem-mono (9.4 months; p < 0.0001). This difference was driven by the patients who did not undergo surgery, where FIO was superior to other regimens. The resection rates for patients with BRPC were 0.55 for gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and 0.53 with FIO. In patients with LAPC, resection rates were 0.19 with Gemcitabine and 0.28 with FIO. In resected patients, OS for patients with BRPC was 32.9 months with FIO and not different compared to Gem/nab, (28.6 months, p = 0.285), GemX (38.8 months, p = 0.1), or Gem-mono (23.1 months, p = 0.083). A similar trend was observed in resected patients converted from LAPC.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with BRPC or LAPC, primary treatment with FOLFIRINOX compared with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy appears to provide a survival benefit for patients that are ultimately unresectable. For patients that undergo surgical resection, outcomes are similar between GEM+ and FOLFIRINOX when delivered in the neoadjuvant setting.
Topics: Humans; Gemcitabine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Oxaliplatin; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Fluorouracil; Leucovorin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Paclitaxel; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37020094
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13353-2 -
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology : JDD Jul 2023This article describes the clinical trial, safety, and efficacy of ruxolitinib 1.5% cream or repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
BACKGROUND
This article describes the clinical trial, safety, and efficacy of ruxolitinib 1.5% cream or repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review was done using ruxolitinib or Opzelura in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov was used to identify ongoing or unpublished studies.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Studies included were written in English and relevant to pharmacology, clinical trials, safety, and efficacy.
DATA SYNTHESIS
In two 52-week phase 3 trials, 52.0% of subjects had at least 75% improvement in their Facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI).
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Ruxolitinib is a topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
CONCLUSION
Topical ruxolitinib is the first medication approved for repigmentation in patients with vitiligo. It is a safe and effective treatment; however, cost may be a barrier to some patients when prescribing this medication. Trials to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of topical ruxolitinib with other topical treatments are still needed. Grossmann MC, Haidari W, Feldman SR. A Review on the use of topical ruxolitinib for the treatment of vitiligo. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(7):664-667. doi:10.36849/JDD.7268.
Topics: Humans; Vitiligo; Pyrimidines; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Treatment Outcome; Janus Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 37410047
DOI: 10.36849/JDD.7268 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Nov 2023To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of current treatment strategies for the vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of current treatment strategies for the vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome.
METHODS
A protocolized systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. Three databases were searched for reports on treatment strategies for VEXAS. Data from the included publications was extracted and a narrative synthesis was performed. Treatment response was recorded as complete (CR), partial (PR) or none (NR) depending on changes in clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters. Patient characteristics, safety data and previous treatments were analysed.
RESULTS
We identified 36 publications with a total of 116 patients; 113 (98.3%) were male. The identified reports included azacytidine (CR 9/36, 25%; PR 14/36, 38.9%), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (CR 11/33, 33%; PR 9/33, 27.3%), tocilizumab (CR 3/15, 20%; PR 6/15, 40%), allogeneic stem cell transplantation (CR 6/7, 85.7%; one patient died), anakinra (CR 4/5, 80%; NR 1/5, 20%), canakinumab (CR 1/2, 50%; PR 1/2, 50%) and glucocorticoid monotherapy (CR 1/6, 16.7%; PR 4/6, 66.7%). Individual reports were available for TNF inhibitors, rituximab and MTX. Data on adverse events were available for 67 patients (67/116, 57.8%) and included: pneumonia (12/67, 17.9%), other infections (9/67, 13.4%), venous thromboembolisms (6/67, 8.9%), cytopenias (4/67, 5.9%), and acute (4/67, 5.9%) and chronic graft-vs-host-disease (2/67, 2.9%).
CONCLUSION
Current data on VEXAS treatment are limited and inhomogeneous. Treatment decisions should be individualized. For the devolvement of treatment algorithms clinical trials are needed. Adverse events remain a challenge, especially an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism associated to JAKi treatment should be carefully considered.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Algorithms; Azacitidine; Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome; Databases, Factual; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Mutation
PubMed: 37233149
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead240 -
Pharmacotherapy Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of risdiplam on motor and respiratory function in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of risdiplam on motor and respiratory function in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2023. We included pre-post studies that determined the effect of risdiplam on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP-INTEND), the 32-item Motor Function Measure (MFM32), the Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM), the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale - Expanded (HFMSE), respiratory function, and the proportion of risdiplam-related adverse events in a population with SMA (phenotypes 1 and 2/3). Meta-analyses were also performed where possible. Eleven studies were included. After 12 months of treatment, 57% of participants with SMA1 achieved a CHOP-INTEND score ≥ 40 points, and more than half were able to feed orally and had head control. In SMA2/3, MFM32, RULM, and HFMSE increased by 2.09 (1.17, 3.01), 1.73 (1.25, 2.20), and 1.00 (0.40, 1.59) points, respectively. Efficacy on respiratory function in SMA2/3 was inconsistent. Finally, 16% of participants experienced adverse events, but serious adverse events could not be quantified due to a lack of cases. The limited available evidence suggests that risdiplam is an effective and safe drug for the treatment of SMA. In addition, long-term clinical benefit may be partly determined by the stage of disease at which treatment is initiated.
Topics: Child; Infant; Humans; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal; Azo Compounds; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 37574770
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2866 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Aug 2023Tofacitinib has emerged as a new potential treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis [ASUC]. We conducted a systematic review to assess efficacy, safety and...
BACKGROUND
Tofacitinib has emerged as a new potential treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis [ASUC]. We conducted a systematic review to assess efficacy, safety and integration in ASUC algorithms.
METHODS
Systematic searching was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov until August 17, 2022, including all studies reporting original observations on tofacitinib for ASUC, preferably defined according to Truelove and Witts criteria. The primary outcome was colectomy-free survival.
RESULTS
Of 1072 publications identified, 21 studies were included of which three were ongoing clinical trials. The remaining comprised a pooled cohort originating from 15 case publications [n = 42], a GETAID cohort study [n = 55], a case-control study [n = 40 cases] and a paediatric cohort [n = 11]. Of these 148 reported cases, tofacitinib was used as second-line treatment after steroid failure in previous infliximab failures or third-line after sequential steroid and infliximab or cyclosporine failure, 69 [47%] were female, median age range was 17-34 years and disease duration was 0.7-10 years. Overall, 30-day colectomy-free survival was 85% [n = 123 of 145; n = 3 without colectomy had follow-up <30 days], 90-day 86% [n = 113 of 132; n = 16 follow-up <90 days] and 180-day 69% [n = 77 of 112; n = 36 follow-up <180 days]. Tofacitinib persistence at follow-up was 68-91%, clinical remission 35-69% and endoscopic remission 55%. Adverse events occurred in 22 patients, predominantly being infectious complications other than herpes zoster [n = 13], and resulted in tofacitinib discontinuation in seven patients.
CONCLUSION
Tofacitinib appears promising for treatment of ASUC with high short-term colectomy-free survival among refractory patients who are otherwise deemed to require colectomy. However, large high-quality studies are needed.
Topics: Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Colitis, Ulcerative; Treatment Outcome; Piperidines; Pyrimidines; Humans
PubMed: 36860164
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad036 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4). Thirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks). Amongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy). Considering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%. For the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). For health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). Regarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Alopecia Areata; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Betamethasone; Cyclosporins; Biological Products
PubMed: 37870096
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013719.pub2