-
Journal of the American Academy of... Mar 2020Alopecia areata (AA) is a common autoimmune alopecia with heterogeneous severity and distribution. Previous studies found conflicting results about AA epidemiology. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is a common autoimmune alopecia with heterogeneous severity and distribution. Previous studies found conflicting results about AA epidemiology.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the prevalence, incidence, and predictors of AA, alopecia totalis, alopecia ophiasis, and alopecia universalis.
METHODS
A systematic review of all published cohort and cross-sectional studies that analyzed AA and its subtypes. MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and GREAT were searched. At least 2 reviewers performed study title/abstract review and data extraction. Random-effects meta-analysis was used because of significant heterogeneity (I = 99.97%).
RESULTS
Ninety-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval, N) of AA overall was 2.11% (1.82-2.42, N = 302,157,365), with differences of population-based (0.75% [0.49-1.06%], N = 301,173,403) and clinic-based (3.47% [3.01-3.96], N = 983,962) studies. The prevalences of alopecia totalis, ophiasis, and universalis were 0.08% (0.04-0.13, N = 1,088,149), 0.02% (0.00-0.06, N = 1,075,203), and 0.03% (0.01-0.06, N = 1,085,444), respectively. AA prevalence (95% confidence interval) increased over time (<2000: 1.02% [0.85-1.22]; 2000-2009: 1.76% [1.51-2.03]; >2009: 3.22% [2.59-3.92]; P < .0001) and differed by region. AA prevalence was significantly lower in adults (1.47% [1.18-1.80]) than children (1.92% [1.31-2.65]; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS
AA affects 2% of the global population. AA prevalence is lower in adults than children, is increasing over time, and significantly differs by region.
Topics: Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Humans; Incidence; Prevalence
PubMed: 31437543
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.08.032 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Jun 2021Alopecia areata is the third most common cause of dermatology consultations in children but the treatment of paediatric alopecia areata remains challenging. A systematic... (Review)
Review
Alopecia areata is the third most common cause of dermatology consultations in children but the treatment of paediatric alopecia areata remains challenging. A systematic review of the literature about the treatment of alopecia areata in children (≤18 years old) was performed on 11 May 2020 by searching the PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO databases. The terms used for the search were: 'alopecia areata', 'alopecia totalis' or 'alopecia universalis' combined with 'paediatric', 'children' or 'childhood'. A total of 89 articles were included in final evaluation. The most commonly assessed treatment options in paediatric alopecia areata were topical immunotherapy (response rate in monotherapy: 54%; 187/345) intralesional glucocorticosteroids (75%; 211/280), systemic glucocorticosteroids (73%; 102/140), and anthralin (42%; 31/74). Topical glucocorticosteroids (81%; 35/43), systemic Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (90%; 27/30), topical calcineurin inhibitors (42%; 8/19), topical JAK inhibitors (65%; 11/17), PUVA therapy (56%; 9/16) and 308-nm excimer laser (77%; 10/13) were also evaluated. Additionally, evaluation in smaller numbers of paediatric patients included methotrexate (100%; 10/10), topical minoxidil (44%; 4/9) and cyclosporine (83%; 5/6). There were limited data considering children with alopecia areata treated with azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, topical sildenafil, topical prostaglandin analogues, fractional carbon dioxide laser, leflunomide, mesalazine, apremilast, dupilumab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, botulinum toxin, and compound glycyrrhizin. On the basis of the limited data available glucocorticosteroids (systemic, intralesional or topical) and JAK inhibitors (systemic or topical) may be considered the best documented and most effective treatment options in alopecia areata in children. There are no sufficient paediatric data to compare treatment safety and relapse rates in these therapeutic modalities.
Topics: Adolescent; Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; Child; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Leflunomide; Minoxidil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33630354
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17187 -
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 -
Dermatology and Therapy Jun 2020Cyclosporine is commonly used in treatment for alopecia areata. It can be administered as a monotherapy or in combination with systemic corticosteroids, with various... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cyclosporine is commonly used in treatment for alopecia areata. It can be administered as a monotherapy or in combination with systemic corticosteroids, with various outcomes.
METHODS
Efficacy of cyclosporine with and without systemic corticosteroids for alopecia areata was evaluated by a systematic review. Cochrane, EBSCOhost, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched. Only studies published before January 2020 were included.
RESULTS
A total of 2104 studies were initially examined, of which 14 were eligible for the systematic review. Among 340 reported cases, 213 had focal, multifocal or ophiasis form of alopecia areata, 60 were diagnosed with alopecia totalis and 67 with alopecia universalis. The mean response rate in the whole group of patients at the end of treatment was 65.00% (221/340; range 25-100%). Hair regrowth rate was higher in the group with cases of alopecia areata limited to scalp (124/165; mean 75.15%; range 40-100%) than in the cases with alopecia totalis (30/46; mean 65.22%; range 25-100%) or alopecia universalis (24/52; mean 46.15%; range 25-100%). The combined therapy with systemic corticosteroids was superior to the monotherapy (152/219; mean 69.41%; 0-80% vs. 69/121; mean 57.02%; range 6.67-100%) and had a lower recurrence rate (39/108; mean 36.11% vs. 34/46; mean 73.91%, respectively). The combined treatment with methylprednisolone was significantly more effective when compared to the cyclosporine monotherapy (124/183; mean 67.76%; range 0-80% vs. 69/121; mean 57.02%; range 6.67-100%). The mean time of treatment was 6.75 months (range 2-36).
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of our study were the retrospective character of included studies, differences in doses of prescribed drugs, and duration of the treatment and follow-up times.
CONCLUSION
Cyclosporine in combination with oral systemic corticosteroids is more effective than in monotherapy for severe alopecia areata.
PubMed: 32270396
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-020-00370-2 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Alopecia areata (AA) is a non-scarring hair loss condition, subclassified into AA, alopecia universalis, and alopecia totalis. There are indications that people with AA...
INTRODUCTION
Alopecia areata (AA) is a non-scarring hair loss condition, subclassified into AA, alopecia universalis, and alopecia totalis. There are indications that people with AA experience adverse psychosocial outcomes, but previous studies have not included a thorough meta-analysis and did not compare people with AA to people with other dermatological diagnoses. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update and expand previous systematic reviews, as well as describing and quantifying levels of anxiety, depression, and quality of life (QoL) in children and adults with AA.
METHODS
A search was conducted, yielding 1,249 unique records of which 93 were included.
RESULTS
Review results showed that people with AA have higher chances of being diagnosed with anxiety and/or depression and experience impaired QoL. Their psychosocial outcomes are often similar to other people with a dermatological condition. Meta-analytic results showed significantly more symptoms of anxiety and depression in adults with AA compared to healthy controls. Results also showed a moderate impact on QoL. These results further highlight that AA, despite causing little physical impairments, can have a significant amount on patients' well-being.
DISCUSSION
Future studies should examine the influence of disease severity, disease duration, remission and relapse, and medication use to shed light on at-risk groups in need of referral to psychological care.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022323174].
PubMed: 36523776
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1054898 -
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology &... Nov 2020The excimer laser/light (EL) has been reported to be effective for alopecia areata (AA), but its treatment response has not been systematically reviewed. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The excimer laser/light (EL) has been reported to be effective for alopecia areata (AA), but its treatment response has not been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the treatment response and safety of EL treatment of AA.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science (from inception to December 31, 2018) was conducted to identify prospective clinical studies assessing the treatment response of EL for AA. The primary outcome was cosmetically acceptable hair regrowth (hair regrowth ≥75%); random-effects meta-analyses using generic inverse variance weighting were performed to estimate treatment responses. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019121092).
RESULTS
Of 52 records initially identified, 13 full-text articles were finally assessed in terms of eligibility. A total of 9 prospective clinical studies (129 AA patients) including 5 controlled clinical trials were identified. Cosmetically acceptable hair regrowth was achieved in 50.2% (95% confidence interval 31.5%-68.9%; 8 studies). EL treatment significantly improved hair regrowth compared with untreated controls (relative risk 7.83; 95% confidence interval 2.11-29.11; 5 controlled clinical trials). No serious adverse effect was noted.
CONCLUSIONS
EL treatment appeared to produce a favorable therapeutic response in AA patients. The use of EL should be encouraged for AA patients with the advantages of the non-invasiveness and no systemic effect.
Topics: Alopecia Areata; Hair; Humans; Lasers, Excimer; Low-Level Light Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32745343
DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12596