-
Journal of the American Academy of... Jul 2017Androgenetic alopecia, or male pattern hair loss, is a hair loss disorder mediated by dihydrotestosterone, the potent form of testosterone. Currently, minoxidil and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Androgenetic alopecia, or male pattern hair loss, is a hair loss disorder mediated by dihydrotestosterone, the potent form of testosterone. Currently, minoxidil and finasteride are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, and HairMax LaserComb, which is FDA-cleared, are the only treatments recognized by the FDA as treatments of androgenetic alopecia.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the efficacy of nonsurgical treatments of androgenetic alopecia in comparison to placebo for improving hair density, thickness, growth (defined by an increased anagen:telogen ratio), or subjective global assessments done by patients and investigators.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched up to December 2016, with no lower limit on the year. We included only randomized controlled trials of good or fair quality based on the US Preventive Services Task Force quality assessment process.
RESULTS
A meta-analysis was conducted separately for 5 groups of studies that tested the following hair loss treatments: low-level laser light therapy in men, 5% minoxidil in men, 2% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, and 2% minoxidil in women. All treatments were superior to placebo (P < .00001) in the 5 meta-analyses. Other treatments were not included because the appropriate data were lacking.
LIMITATIONS
High heterogeneity in most studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis strongly suggests that minoxidil, finasteride, and low-level laser light therapy are effective for promoting hair growth in men with androgenetic alopecia and that minoxidil is effective in women with androgenetic alopecia.
Topics: Alopecia; Finasteride; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Minoxidil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28396101
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.02.054 -
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 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2021COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17-87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alopecia; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; COVID-19; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Headache; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult
PubMed: 34373540
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-95565-8 -
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 -
JAMA Dermatology Jan 2023Despite the widespread use of nutritional supplements and dietary interventions for treating hair loss, the safety and effectiveness of available products remain unclear.
IMPORTANCE
Despite the widespread use of nutritional supplements and dietary interventions for treating hair loss, the safety and effectiveness of available products remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and compile the findings of all dietary and nutritional interventions for treatment of hair loss among individuals without a known baseline nutritional deficiency.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through October 20, 2021, to identify articles written in English with original findings from investigations of dietary and nutritional interventions in individuals with alopecia or hair loss without a known baseline nutritional deficiency. Quality was assessed with Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine criteria. Outcomes of interest were disease course, both objectively and subjectively measured. Data were evaluated from January 3 to 11, 2022.
FINDINGS
The database searches yielded 6347 citations to which 11 articles from reference lists were added. Of this total, 30 articles were included: 17 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 11 clinical studies (non-RCT), and 2 case series studies. No diet-based interventional studies met inclusion criteria. Studies of nutritional interventions with the highest-quality evidence showed the potential benefit of Viviscal, Nourkrin, Nutrafol, Lamdapil, Pantogar, capsaicin and isoflavone, omegas 3 and 6 with antioxidants, apple nutraceutical, total glucosides of paeony and compound glycyrrhizin tablets, zinc, tocotrienol, and pumpkin seed oil. Kimchi and cheonggukjang, vitamin D3, and Forti5 had low-quality evidence for disease course improvement. Adverse effects were rare and mild for all the therapies evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review should be interpreted in the context of each study's design; however, this work suggests a potential role for nutritional supplements in the treatment of hair loss. Physicians should engage in shared decision-making by covering the potential risks and benefits of these treatments with patients experiencing hair loss. Future research should focus on larger RCTs with active comparators.
Topics: Humans; Dietary Supplements; Alopecia; Diet; Malnutrition
PubMed: 36449274
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.4867 -
Lancet (London, England) Feb 2012Lithium is a widely used and effective treatment for mood disorders. There has been concern about its safety but no adequate synthesis of the evidence for adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lithium is a widely used and effective treatment for mood disorders. There has been concern about its safety but no adequate synthesis of the evidence for adverse effects. We aimed to undertake a clinically informative, systematic toxicity profile of lithium.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. We searched electronic databases, specialist journals, reference lists, textbooks, and conference abstracts. We used a hierarchy of evidence which considered randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case reports that included patients with mood disorders given lithium. Outcome measures were renal, thyroid, and parathyroid function; weight change; skin disorders; hair disorders; and teratogenicity.
FINDINGS
We screened 5988 abstracts for eligibility and included 385 studies in the analysis. On average, glomerular filtration rate was reduced by -6·22 mL/min (95% CI -14·65 to 2·20, p=0·148) and urinary concentrating ability by 15% of normal maximum (weighted mean difference -158·43 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -229·78 to -87·07, p<0·0001). Lithium might increase risk of renal failure, but the absolute risk was small (18 of 3369 [0·5%] patients received renal replacement therapy). The prevalence of clinical hypothyroidism was increased in patients taking lithium compared with those given placebo (odds ratio [OR] 5·78, 95% CI 2·00-16·67; p=0·001), and thyroid stimulating hormone was increased on average by 4·00 iU/mL (95% CI 3·90-4·10, p<0·0001). Lithium treatment was associated with increased blood calcium (+0·09 mmol/L, 95% CI 0·02-0·17, p=0·009), and parathyroid hormone (+7·32 pg/mL, 3·42-11·23, p<0·0001). Patients receiving lithium gained more weight than did those receiving placebo (OR 1·89, 1·27-2·82, p=0·002), but not those receiving olanzapine (0·32, 0·21-0·49, p<0·0001). We recorded no significant increased risk of congenital malformations, alopecia, or skin disorders.
INTERPRETATION
Lithium is associated with increased risk of reduced urinary concentrating ability, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, and weight gain. There is little evidence for a clinically significant reduction in renal function in most patients, and the risk of end-stage renal failure is low. The risk of congenital malformations is uncertain; the balance of risks should be considered before lithium is withdrawn during pregnancy. Because of the consistent finding of a high prevalence of hyperparathyroidism, calcium concentrations should be checked before and during treatment.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research Programme Grant for Applied Research.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Lithium; Mood Disorders
PubMed: 22265699
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61516-X -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2023Alopecia areata (AA) is a common chronic tissue-specific autoimmune disease. Several studies have reported outcomes of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for treating AA, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Alopecia areata (AA) is a common chronic tissue-specific autoimmune disease. Several studies have reported outcomes of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for treating AA, but limited evidence has emerged.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety associated with JAK inhibitors for AA.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception until August 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Pairs of reviewers independently and in duplicate selected the studies.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. This study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes of interest were (1) proportion of patients who achieved 30%, 50%, and 90% improvement in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score from baseline, (2) change from baseline SALT score, and (3) treatment-related adverse event (AE).
RESULTS
Seven RCTs with 1710 patients (1083 females [63.3%]; mean [SD] age range, 36.3 [10.4] to 69.7 [16.2] years) were eligible and included in the study. JAK inhibitors were associated with more patients achieving 50% improvement (odds ratio [OR], 5.28 [95% CI, 1.69-16.46]; GRADE assessment: low certainty) and 90% improvement (OR, 8.15 [95% CI, 4.42-15.03]; GRADE assessment: low certainty) in SALT score from baseline compared with placebo. JAK inhibitors were associated with more lowered SALT scores from the baseline compared with placebo (mean difference [MD], -34.52 [95% CI, -37.80 to -31.24]; GRADE assessment: moderate certainty), and JAK inhibitors were not associated with more treatment-related AEs (relative risk [RR], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.00-1.57]; GRADE assessment: high certainty) compared with placebo. High certainty of evidence showed that JAK inhibitors may not be associated with more severe AEs compared with placebo (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41-1.43). The subgroup analysis showed that oral JAK inhibitors were more efficient than placebo (change from baseline SALT scores: MD, -36.80; 95% CI, -39.57 to -34.02), and no difference was found between external JAK inhibitors and placebo (change from baseline SALT scores: MD, -0.40; 95% CI, -11.30 to 10.50).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo, were associated with hair regrowth and that the outcome of oral JAK inhibitors was better than the external route of administration. Although the safety and tolerability of JAK inhibitors were acceptable, longer RCTs are needed to further assess the effectiveness and safety of these treatments for AA.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Alopecia Areata; Chronic Disease; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 37368402
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.20351 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jul 2023Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune non-scarring alopecia that affects the scalp or any hair-bearing areas in the body. The pathophysiology of AA is complex, but Th1,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune non-scarring alopecia that affects the scalp or any hair-bearing areas in the body. The pathophysiology of AA is complex, but Th1, Th2, and Th17 cytokines dysregulation, as well as chemokines, immunoglobulins and other biomarkers have been shown to play a role in the pathogenesis of the disease.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and Meta-analysis to identify biomarkers that reflect AA activity and severity that could be used to better assess disease activity and response in both trials and clinical practice.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using the PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to December 2021. Articles reporting on associations between AA and serum clinical biomarkers (cytokines, chemokines, antibodies, immunoglobulins, and others) were included. Serum biomarkers were identified in patients with AA and were correlated with disease severity and patient characteristics (ex. age, sex, comorbidities). The quality of the studies was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Quality Assessment Tool for Case-Control Studies. Meta-analysis pooling of the standardized mean differences (SMD) by the method of Cohen using the common-effect inverse-variance model was performed. For the Meta-analysis, data was pulled for all the markers with a minimum of 4 studies with means and standard deviations. Analysis of data reported as Median with range or inter-quartile range (IQR) revealed that the data was too skewed to recommend calculation and use of mean with standard deviation (SD). If the data were not skewed, mean and SD were calculated.
RESULTS
One thousand seven hundred fourteen studies were screened, with 91 included, reporting on a total of 52 biomarkers. Meta-analyses revealed pooled SMD that were significant for interleukin 6 (IL6), C-reactive protein (CRP) and vitamin D.
CONCLUSIONS
Serum IL6 and CRP levels are significantly increased in patients with AA compared to healthy age and sex matched controls. Conversely, serum vitamn D levels are significantly decreased in patients with AA compared to healthy age and sex matched controls. This data has the potential to influence the clinical guidelines for the diagnostic workup of AA to include testing the serum levels of CRP and vitamin D.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Interleukin-6; Biomarkers; Cytokines; Vitamin D; Chemokines; C-Reactive Protein; Vitamins
PubMed: 37087083
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103339 -
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 -
Dermatologic Therapy May 2021Existing guidelines form no consensus for alopecia areata (AA) treatment due to the absence of a universal standard treatment and arbitrary selection of reference arms... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Existing guidelines form no consensus for alopecia areata (AA) treatment due to the absence of a universal standard treatment and arbitrary selection of reference arms in randomized control trials (RCTs). The aim is to identify the best treatment and to rank treatments using systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data were extracted by the two investigators independently. Odds ratio (OR) of treatment success rate was pooled using the frequentist weighted least squares approach to random-model network meta-analysis. RCTs providing data of treatment success rate from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and manual search were included. About 54 RCTs consisting of 49 treatments and 3149 patients were included. Pentoxifylline plus topical corticosteroids had the highest treatment success rate compared with "no treatment," followed by pentoxifylline alone, topical calcipotriol plus narrowband ultraviolet radiation B phototherapy, topical calcipotriol, intralesional corticosteroids, systemic corticosteroids, minoxidil plus topical corticosteroids, topical bimatoprost, psoralen ultraviolet radiation A phototherapy, and tofacitinib. Even with the network meta-analysis, the best treatment because of independent loops and wide confidence intervals could not be identified. Treatment options above may be reasonable strategies, but further comparison is required.
Topics: Alopecia Areata; Humans; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Phototherapy; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 33631058
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14916