-
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Jul 2022Alopecia areata (AA) in its extensive and severe forms is treatment-challenging, especially in pediatrics. (Review)
Review
A systematic review on the treatment of pediatric severe alopecia areata by topical immunotherapy or Anthralin (contact sensitization) or low-level light/laser therapy (LLLT): focus on efficacy, safety, treatment duration, recurrence, and follow-up based on clinical studies.
INTRODUCTION
Alopecia areata (AA) in its extensive and severe forms is treatment-challenging, especially in pediatrics.
METHOD
A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of seven electronic databases was searched by the terms "alopecia areata," "pediatric," "topical immunotherapy," "Anthralin," and "light therapy" from inception until March 2021. All the alternative names of the disease and therapies have been included in the search terms. 790 articles went to title abstract review by two independent reviewers. In the subsequent level, a review of the full text of studies was conducted.
RESULTS
Finally, 10 relevant articles in terms of content structure, subject coverage, and purpose, were selected for further review. The highest percentages of complete hair regrowth were 79.6% and 63.61% by SADBE (topical immunotherapy) and laser therapy. By Anthralin (contact sensitization), the complete response rate was below 50% (between 30 and 35%). Regarding average response, the most effective methods were local immunotherapy (with an average effectiveness of 53.8%), laser therapy (52.55%), and the use of Anthralin-induced contact dermatitis (30.86%), respectively. However, recurrence rate-after treatment with induced contact dermatitis by topical medications like Anthralin (contact sensitization)-was lower (mean 43.53%) in comparison with local immunotherapy (57%). In topical immunotherapy, light base therapy, and contact sensitization, the highest percentage of complete hair regrowth and the average response rate were (63.61% and 52.55%), (79.6% and 53.8%) and (32% and 30.8%), respectively. These methods are considered safe in children.
CONCLUSION
A high and more than 50% efficacy in hair regrowth could be expected by topical immunotherapy and light/laser therapy method. No serious side effects have been observed by these methods that are well tolerated in children. Therefore, a combination of local immunotherapy and light/laser therapy could be suggested for the treatment of extensive AA in children. The use of Anthralin could be associated with a lower but more durable response. These points are important for patient selection in individualized situations.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Alopecia Areata; Anthralin; Child; Dermatitis, Contact; Duration of Therapy; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Immunotherapy; Low-Level Light Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34606676
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.14480 -
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 -
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 -
Pediatric Dermatology May 2018Psoriasis is one of the most common chronic skin diseases, affecting 1%-3% of the general population. It can have a significant negative impact on a patient's quality of... (Review)
Review
Psoriasis is one of the most common chronic skin diseases, affecting 1%-3% of the general population. It can have a significant negative impact on a patient's quality of life, and in approximately 30% of patients first symptoms can be traced back to childhood. We have performed a comprehensive literature search using the MEDLINE database in order to ascertain the efficacy and adverse reactions of topical treatments in pediatric psoriasis. A total of 13 relevant articles were identified on the following topical agents: corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, vitamin D analogs, and dithranol. Corticosteroids achieved clearance in 72.7% of patients. Calcitriol lead to a 57.2%-100% mean improvement in severity, and calcipotriol to 52%-64%. Combination of calcipotriol and corticosteroids achieved an improvement in mean severity ranging between 32.1% and 80%. Treatment with tacrolimus lead to an >50% improvement. Finally, short contact dithranol lead to a variable response in clearance between different studies, ranging between 3.7% and 81%. No serious adverse reactions were documented, the most common local reaction being irritation. Pediatric psoriasis is a common and challenging condition with no easy and definitive solution. Topical agents are safe, easy to use, readily available and cheap. However, they need to be applied repeatedly, may cause skin irritation, and can be messy. Based on the results presented above, we recommend utilizing all the available topical options before escalating to systemic treatments.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adolescent; Anthralin; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Child; Dermatologic Agents; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Psoriasis; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin D
PubMed: 29493005
DOI: 10.1111/pde.13422 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Mar 2018
Review
Topics: 11-beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenases; Alopecia Areata; Anthralin; Bimatoprost; Cyclopropanes; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Eyebrows; Eyelashes; Facial Dermatoses; Humans; Latanoprost; Minoxidil; Photosensitizing Agents; Prostaglandins F, Synthetic
PubMed: 28987491
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.09.054 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Aug 2017To review published literature describing the global use of topical antipsoriatics. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review published literature describing the global use of topical antipsoriatics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Search for English-language articles in Embase, Pubmed, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library.
RESULTS
Fifty-four selected publications were found, describing psoriasis patients' use of topical antipsoriatics, using six different methods to collect data. The eight most frequently used topical treatments from the regions North/South America, North/Central/South Europe, Asia, Middle East and Australia were: corticosteroids used by 16-79%, complementary and alternative medicines used by 10-62%, phototherapies used by 0.4-75%, calcipotriol used by 4.2-73%, corticosteroid/calcipotriol combinations used by 3.3-71%, tar used by 0.8-66%, anthralin used by 15% and emollients used as monotherapy by 1-23%. Rates of patient-reported adherence to topical remedies ranged from 51% to 90% and rates of patient-reported satisfaction with topical as it pertains to symptom control ranged from 12% to 52%.
CONCLUSION
The identified use patterns are varying and reflect a lack of data from large parts of the world and noncomparable studies using heterogeneous study designs. However, this study emphasizes the importance of medical professionals involvement of the patient with respect to choosing prescribed topical treatment and the possibility of patients' use of alternative treatments. More drug utilization studies, both survey and register based, from different parts of the world are needed to provide more conclusive evidence about patients' use of topical antipsoriatics.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anthralin; Calcitriol; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Patient Compliance; Psoriasis
PubMed: 27786594
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2016.1254331 -
Archives of Dermatological Research Nov 2016In the course of the chronic skin disease psoriasis, where a variety of treatment interventions is available, a strong growth of health economic studies comparing... (Review)
Review
In the course of the chronic skin disease psoriasis, where a variety of treatment interventions is available, a strong growth of health economic studies comparing treatment costs and benefits can be noticed. The objective was to identify health economic evaluations of psoriasis treatments that have been published to date. Of particular interest were the mostly used analysis and outcome parameters, the compared treatments, and the question, if available health economic studies may be used to perform a meta-analysis of qualitative findings. A systematic literature search using PubMed Medline, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane Library was performed for articles, published and available until mid of January 2016. Among the key words were the terms "psoriasis" and "cost-effectiveness". The search resulted in 318 articles without duplicates. Thereof 60 health economic analyses in psoriasis management were identified. Most of these are cost-effectiveness evaluations (45). The clinical parameter PASI (Psoriasis Area Severity Index) is the most often used cost-effectiveness outcome (33) followed by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (6). In case of cost-utility analyses, QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years) were mostly generated with the help of EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) (12), which was partly based on PASI and DLQI values. The majority of health economic studies is focusing on the direct medical and non-medical costs without consideration of productivity losses. Almost 70 % of 60 publications were conducted in Europe. Overall, most considered systemic treatments were the biological agents etanercept (36), adalimumab (27), and infliximab (26) followed by ustekinumab (17) and phototherapy (incl. UV-B, PUVA/psoralen combined with UV-A) (14). Comparisons including only topical treatments mostly focused on vitamin D treatment (14), corticosteroids (13), and coal tar products (6) followed by dithranol (5) and tazarotene (4). Given the setting, compared treatments, and study conditions, different results can be found for medical decision-making. Thereby, it can be noted that there are no standards on methods and outcomes measures available. This leads to a very limited comparability of health economic studies and presents no comfortable basis to examine a meta-analysis of health economic results. The presented systematic review shows the need for nationwide data and interpretation.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Clinical Decision-Making; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dermatologic Agents; Glucocorticoids; Health Care Costs; Humans; Phototherapy; Psoriasis; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27435415
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-016-1673-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp. Hair makes the scalp difficult to treat and the adjacent facial skin is particularly sensitive to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp. Hair makes the scalp difficult to treat and the adjacent facial skin is particularly sensitive to topical treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for scalp psoriasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to August 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, screened abstracts of six psoriasis-specific conferences and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group, cross-over or within-patient design of topical treatments for people of all ages with scalp psoriasis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. Disagreements were settled by reference to a third author.To assess the quality of evidence, we focused on the following outcomes: 'clearance' or 'response' as assessed by the investigator global assessment (IGA), improvement in quality of life, adverse events requiring withdrawal of treatment and 'response' as assessed by the patient global assessment (PGA).We expressed the results of the single studies as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. If studies were sufficiently homogeneous, we meta-analysed the data by using the random-effects model. Where it was not possible to calculate a point estimate for a single study, we described the data qualitatively. We also presented the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).We categorised topical corticosteroids according to the German classification of corticosteroid potency as mild, moderate, high and very high.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 59 RCTs with a total of 11,561 participants. Thirty studies were either conducted or sponsored by the manufacturer of the study medication. The risk of bias varied considerably among the included studies. For instance, most authors did not state the randomisation method and few addressed allocation concealment. Most findings were limited to short-term treatments, since most studies were conducted for less than six months. Only one trial investigated long-term therapy (12 months). Although we found a wide variety of different interventions, we limited the grading of the quality of evidence to three major comparisons: steroid versus vitamin D, two-compound combination of steroid and vitamin D versus steroid monotherapy and versus vitamin D.In terms of clearance, as assessed by the IGA, steroids were better than vitamin D (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.18; four studies, 2180 participants, NNTB = 8; 95% CI 7 to 11; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was superior to steroid monotherapy, however the additional benefit was small (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.36; four studies, 2474 participants, NNTB = 17; 95% CI 11 to 41; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.87 to 2.78; four studies, 2008 participants, NNTB = 6; 95% CI 5 to 7; high quality evidence).In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the IGA, corticosteroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 2.09; 95% CI 1.80 to 2.41; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 4 to 5; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, but the additional benefit was small (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25; three studies, 2444 participants, NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 24; moderate quality evidence). It was also more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.31; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.04; four studies, 2222 participants, NNTB = 3; 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate quality evidence).Reporting of quality of life data was poor and data were insufficient to be included for meta-analysis.Steroids caused fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.42; four studies, 2291 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination and steroid monotherapy did not differ in the number of adverse events leading withdrawal (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.88; three studies, 2433 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination led to fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; three studies, 1970 participants; high quality evidence). No study reported the type of adverse event requiring withdrawal.In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the PGA, steroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.72; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 5; 95% CI 5 to 7; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, however the benefit was not clinically important (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20; two studies, 2226 participants; NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 26; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.76; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.12; four studies, 2222 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 3 to 6; moderate quality evidence).Common adverse events with these three interventions were local irritation, skin pain and folliculitis. Systemic adverse events were rare and probably not drug-related.In addition to the results of the major three comparisons we found that the two-compound combination, steroids and vitamin D monotherapy were more effective than the vehicle. Steroids of moderate, high and very high potency tended to be similarly effective and well tolerated. There are inherent limitations in this review concerning the evaluation of salicylic acid, tar, dithranol or other topical treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The two-compound combination as well as corticosteroid monotherapy were more effective and safer than vitamin D monotherapy. Given the similar safety profile and only slim benefit of the two-compound combination over the steroid alone, monotherapy with generic topical steroids may be fully acceptable for short-term therapy.Future RCTs should investigate how specific therapies improve the participants' quality of life. Long-term assessments are needed (i.e. 6 to 12 months).
Topics: Administration, Topical; Chronic Disease; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scalp Dermatoses; Steroids; Vitamin D
PubMed: 26915340
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009687.pub2