-
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2023To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to verify the efficacy of using autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in female pattern alopecia (FPA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to verify the efficacy of using autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in female pattern alopecia (FPA).
BACKGROUND
Androgenetic alopecia is the leading cause of hair loss in men andwomen and often impacts self-esteem and quality of life.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE up to May 2021.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
We identified all studies evaluating the effect of PRP in FPA. A narrative synthesis was performed from data on the efficacy of PRP treatment and adverse effects; quantitative results of PRP use compared to control treatment for female androgenetic alopecia (AGA) were synthesized. The outcomes analyzed were terminal density and hair thickness.
RESULTS
Seven articles were selected for this review. Meta-analysis showed that PRP-based interventions were able to increase terminal hair density compared to control (standardized mean difference (SMD)=2.98, 95% confidence intervals (CIs)=1.10, 4.85), with no significant increase in hair thickness (SMD = 1.16, 95% CI= -0.96, 3.28). During and after treatment, no major side effects were reported by patients or researchers.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of autologous PRP injections in female AGA seems to be promising, with more consistent results on terminal hair density. However, caution is recommended in the interpretation of these results until they can be replicated in larger and more representative samples. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021257154.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Alopecia; Hair; Platelet-Rich Plasma
PubMed: 36264022
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2138692 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common kind, accounting for 90% of cases. First-line therapy for women with epithelial ovarian cancer consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy. However, more than 50% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer will experience a relapse and require further chemotherapy and at some point develop resistance to platinum-based drugs. Currently, guidance on the use of most chemotherapy drugs, including taxanes, is unclear for women whose epithelial ovarian cancer has recurred. Paclitaxel, topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, trabectedin and gemcitabine are all licensed for use in the UK at the discretion of clinicians, following discussion with the women as to potential adverse effects. Taxanes can be given in once-weekly regimens (at a lower dose) or three-weekly regimens (at a higher dose), which may have differences in the severity of side effects and effectiveness. As relapsed disease suggests incurable disease, it is all the more important to consider side effects and the impact of treatment schedules, as well as quality of life, and not only the life-prolonging effects of treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and toxicity of different taxane monotherapy regimens for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, up to 22 March 2022. Other related databases and trial registries were searched as well as grey literature and no additional studies were identified. A total of 1500 records were identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of taxane monotherapy for adult women diagnosed with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. We included trials comparing two or more taxane monotherapy regimens. Participants could be experiencing their first recurrence of disease or any line of recurrence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened, independently assessed studies, and extracted data from the included studies. The clinical outcomes we examined were overall survival, response rate, progression-free survival, neurotoxicity, neutropenia, alopecia, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models following standard Cochrane methodology. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Our literature search yielded 1500 records of 1466 studies; no additional studies were identified by searching grey literature or handsearching. We uploaded the search results into Covidence. After the exclusion of 92 duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 1374 records. Of these, we identified 24 studies for full-text screening. We included four parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All trials were multicentred and conducted in a hospital setting. The studies included 981 eligible participants with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer with a median age ranging between 56 to 62 years of age. All participants had a WHO (World Health Organization) performance status of between 0 to 2. The proportion of participants with serous histology ranged between 56% to 85%. Participants included women who had platinum-sensitive (71%) and platinum-resistant (29%) relapse. Some participants were taxane pre-treated (5.6%), whilst the majority were taxane-naive (94.4%). No studies were classified as having a high risk of bias for any of the domains in the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We found that there may be little or no difference in overall survival (OS) between weekly paclitaxel and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.33, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there may be little or no difference in response rate (RR of 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and progression-free survival (PFS) (RR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) between weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain. We found differences in the chemotherapy-associated adverse events between the weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel regimens. The weekly paclitaxel regimen may result in a reduction in neutropenia (RR 0.51, 95% 0.27 to 0.95, two studies, 260 participants, low-certainty evidence) and alopecia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73, one study, 205 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in neurotoxicity, but the evidence was very low-certainty and we cannot exclude an effect (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45, two studies, 260 participants). When examining the effect of paclitaxel dosage in the three-weekly regimen, the 250 mg/m paclitaxel regimen probably causes more neurotoxicity compared to the 175 mg/m regimen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, one study, 330 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life data were not extractable from any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fewer people may experience neutropenia when given weekly rather than three-weekly paclitaxel (low-certainty evidence), although it may make little or no difference to the risk of developing neurotoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). This is based on the participants receiving lower doses of drug more often. However, our confidence in this result is low and the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Weekly paclitaxel probably reduces the risk of alopecia, although the rates in both arms were high (46% versus 79%) (low-certainty evidence). A change to weekly from three-weekly chemotherapy could be considered to reduce the likelihood of toxicity, as it may have little or no negative impact on response rate (very low-certainty evidence), PFS (very low-certainty evidence) or OS (very low-certainty evidence). Three-weekly paclitaxel, given at a dose of 175 mg/m compared to a higher dose,probably reduces the risk of neurotoxicity.We are moderately confident in this result; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. A change to 175 mg/m paclitaxel (from a higher dose), if a three-weekly regimen is used, probably has little or no negative impact on PFS or OS (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Adult; Alopecia; Bridged-Ring Compounds; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neutropenia; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Taxoids
PubMed: 35866378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008766.pub3 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Sep 2022While there are literature reporting increased incidence of hair loss in COVID-19 patients, insufficient evidence exists on the topic to date. This review aims to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
While there are literature reporting increased incidence of hair loss in COVID-19 patients, insufficient evidence exists on the topic to date. This review aims to identify the existing evidence and clinical characteristics of hair loss with COVID-19 infection.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for all peer-reviewed articles with relevant keywords including "Alopecia," "Telogen Effluvium (TE)," and "COVID-19" from their inception to November 20, 2021.
RESULTS
A total of 26 articles, with 9 observational studies and 17 case reports or series (a total of 58 cases), were included. Most studies dealt with TE. There were no clear trends between COVID-19 severity and the extent of hair loss. Analysis of the 58 cases also found similar results with most of the cases being female (82.8%), the median onset of hair loss of 2.0 months, and the median time to recovery of hair loss of 5.0 months with a resolution rate of 95%.
CONCLUSION
While this systematic review revealed uncertainty and a lack of strong evidence regarding the association of COVID-19 and hair loss, hair loss in COVID-19 may mainly include TE and be reversible in nature. Future studies are warranted to determine the detailed pathophysiology and risk factors of hair loss in COVID-19, including possible roles of estrogen, progesterone, and pro-inflammatory cytokines.
Topics: Alopecia; Alopecia Areata; COVID-19; Cytokines; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Male; Progesterone
PubMed: 35801366
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15218 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Jan 2023Androgenetic alopecia is the most common cause of hair loss in both males and females. In a society that places significant value on hair and associates it with... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Androgenetic alopecia is the most common cause of hair loss in both males and females. In a society that places significant value on hair and associates it with attractiveness, a lack there of can have damaging psychological consequences. The psychosocial impact of hair loss is often overlooked due to the medically benign nature of offending conditions. Addressing the psychological aspects of androgenetic alopecia can improve holistic patient care and patient outcomes.
METHODS
A search was conducted in PubMed using the following search strategy: androgenetic alopecia AND anxiety OR depression OR psychological OR psychosocial OR self-esteem. Studies were excluded if they focused on any other type of alopecia or were published in a language other than English.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies were retained after the initial search process. The included studies date from 1992 to 2021. They all conclude that androgenetic alopecia serves as a significant psychosocial stressor in the lives of those affected. It impairs quality of life according to multiple measures.
CONCLUSION
The data examined from these studies shed light on the increased need to attend to the psychosocial comorbidity associated with androgenetic alopecia. These hair-loss patients often present to dermatology clinics to seek treatment but would also benefit from psychological support.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Quality of Life; Alopecia; Hair; Self Concept; Anxiety
PubMed: 35403805
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.14983 -
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del... Jan 2023The number of articles evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and alopecia areata (AA) has increased exponentially during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The number of articles evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and alopecia areata (AA) has increased exponentially during the last years. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the benefit of PRP in the treatment of alopecia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and CENTRAL for relevant data. Treatment effect was described by mean difference (MD) and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
RESULTS
We found 27 controlled trials (1,117 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 18 trials (713 subjects) in patients with AGA, and 9 (404 subjects) in patients with AA. Eleven studies had a split head design. There was heterogeneity in types of PRP (e.g., activated and non-activated) and administration schedules. PRP was compared to saline injections (18 studies), local steroid injections (4 studies) and other comparators (5 studies). Most commonly reported outcomes were hair density and hair regrowth. It was not possible to pool all outcome data because of heterogeneity in reporting, and because reporting was often limited to a single study. Compared to saline injections, PRP injections increased hair density over a medium-term follow-up (MD, 25.6 hairs/cm; 95 % CI: 2.62-48.57), but the evidence was rated as low quality due to inconsistency and risk of bias. In individuals with AA, it is unclear whether PRP injection compared with triamcinolone injection increase the rate of subjects with hair regrowth (very-low quality of evidence due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias). There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence showing benefit of PRP for treatment of alopecia, and most of this evidence is of low quality.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Clinical Protocols; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34967722
DOI: 10.2450/2021.0216-21 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Feb 2022The association of androgenetic alopecia with metabolic syndrome has been investigated in several studies, with conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The association of androgenetic alopecia with metabolic syndrome has been investigated in several studies, with conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the risk grade of metabolic syndrome and the metabolic profile in patients with androgenetic alopecia compared with controls. In total, 19 articles (2,531 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio for the prevalence rate of metabolic syndrome between the group with androgenetic alopecia and controls was 3.46 (95% CI 2.38-5.05; p < 0.001). Female sex, early onset, and African ethnicity were associated with an increased risk of metabolic syndrome. Furthermore, patients with androgenetic alopecia had significantly poorer metabolic profiles, such as body mass index, waist circumference, fasting glucose, blood lipids, and blood pressure. It is important for physicians to screen metabolism-related indicators in patients with androgenetic alopecia. More rigorously designed studies and larger sample sizes are required in future studies.
Topics: Alopecia; Female; Humans; Lipids; Metabolic Syndrome; Odds Ratio; Prevalence
PubMed: 34935992
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v101.1012 -
PloS One 2021Genetic association studies on alopecia areata (AA) performed in various populations have shown heterogeneous results. The aim of the current review was to synthesize... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Genetic association studies on alopecia areata (AA) performed in various populations have shown heterogeneous results. The aim of the current review was to synthesize the results of said studies to estimate the impact of FAS, FASL, PTPN22, CTLA4 and IL2RA gene polymorphisms on AA susceptibility.
DESIGN
A systematic literature search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Studies published up to June 2020 were included. The results available in the grey literature including the Open Grey and Google Scholar databases were also used. The texts of potentially related studies were screened by individual reviewers. Evidence of publication bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. The quantitative synthesis was performed using the fixed effect model.
RESULTS
Out of 1784 articles, we identified 18 relevant articles for the qualitative synthesis and 16 for the quantitative synthesis. In a study of rs2476601 polymorphism of PTPN22 gene, including 1292 cases and 1832 controls, a correlation was found with the risk of developing AA in the allelic model (OR1.49 [95% C:1.13-1.95]), the heterozygous codominant (OR1.44 [95% CI:1:19-1.76]) and dominant model (OR1.43 [95% CI:1.18-1.73]). No association was found between the presence of FASL, PTPN22, CTLA and IL2RA gene polymorphisms with AA susceptibility.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the T allele of the single nucleoid polymorphism (SNP) rs2476601 in PTPN22 gene is a risk factor for developing alopecia areata. However, more robust studies defining the ethnic background of the population of origin are required, so that the risk identified in the present study can be validated. Additionally, a greater number of studies is necessary to evaluate the role of the FAS, FASL, PTPN22, CTLA4 and IL2RA genetic variants, given the heterogenous results found in the literature.
Topics: Alleles; Alopecia Areata; CTLA-4 Antigen; Fas Ligand Protein; Genetic Association Studies; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genotype; Humans; Interleukin-2 Receptor alpha Subunit; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase, Non-Receptor Type 22; fas Receptor
PubMed: 34735462
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258499 -
BMC Cancer Oct 2021Actinomycin-D (Act-D) and Methotrexate (MTX) are both effective first-line agents for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (LRGTN) with no consensus regarding... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Direct comparisons of efficacy and safety between actinomycin-D and methotrexate in women with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized and high-quality non-randomized studies.
BACKGROUND
Actinomycin-D (Act-D) and Methotrexate (MTX) are both effective first-line agents for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (LRGTN) with no consensus regarding which is more effective or less toxic. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare Act-D with MTX in the treatment of LRGTN.
METHODS
We systematically searched electronic databases, conferences abstracts and trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high-quality non-randamized controlled trials (non-RCTs), comparing Act-D with MTX for patients with LRGTN. Studies were full-text screened for quality assessment and data extraction. Eligible studies must have reported complete remission rate. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the efficacy and safety of Act-D and MTX on odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs), respectively.
RESULTS
A total of 8 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs (1674 patients) were included. In terms of efficacy, Act-D is superior to MTX in complete remission (80.2% [551/687] vs 65.1% [643/987]; OR 2.15, 95%CI 1.70 to 2.73). In the stratified analysis, patients from RCTs and non-RCTs both had a better complete remission from Act-D-based regimen (RCTs: 81.2% [259/319] vs 66.1% [199/301], OR 2.17, 95%CI 1.49 to 3.16; non-RCTs: 79.3% [292/368] vs 65.0% [444/686], OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.57 to 2.92). In terms of safety, patients receiving Act-D had higher risks of suffering nausea (OR 2.35, 95%CI 1.68 to 3.27), vomiting (OR 2.40, 95%CI 1.63 to 3.54), and alopecia (OR 2.76, 95%CI 1.60 to 4.75). Notably, liver toxicity (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.76) was the only one that was conformed to have a higher risk for patients receiving MTX. In addition, the pooled results showed no significant difference of anaemia, leucocytopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopnia, constipation, diarrhea, anorexia, and fatigue between Act-D and MTX.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests that Act-D had better efficacy profile in general, and MTX had less toxicities in LRGTN. Future clinical trials should be better orchestrated to provide more valid data on efficacy and toxicity.
Topics: Alopecia; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Dactinomycin; Female; Gestational Trophoblastic Disease; Humans; Methotrexate; Nausea; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Risk; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 34663255
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08849-7 -
European Review For Medical and... Aug 2021The aim of the study was to compare the risk of chemotherapy induced alopecia among patients with scalp cooling therapy, compared to those that did not receive scalp... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to compare the risk of chemotherapy induced alopecia among patients with scalp cooling therapy, compared to those that did not receive scalp cooling.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google scholar databases. Studies, preferably randomized controlled trials, that compared scalp cooling with no scalp cooling (control) for risk of alopecia or hair loss in patients undergoing chemotherapy were considered for inclusion. The strength of association was presented in the form of pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for categorical outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. Statistical analysis was done using STATA version 16.0.
RESULTS
A total of 14 articles were identified, of which 9 were included in the meta-analysis and for the remaining 5 articles, the findings were synthesized descriptively. Compared to control group patients, those that received scalp cooling had 41% lower risk of alopecia [RR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.66]. The overall quality of pooled evidence for the risk of alopecia was judged "moderate". There were no differences in the anxiety score [WMD 0.57, 95% CI: -0.55, 1.69], depression score [WMD 0.31, 95% CI: -1.19, 1.80], score reflecting emotional functioning [WMD 0.06, 95% CI: -1.37, 1.49] and social functioning [WMD -8.37, 95% CI: -25.7, 8.93] among the two groups of patients. The pooled evidence suggests that around 66% (95% CI: 37-95%) of the subjects reported some discomfort with use of scalp cooling system. The commonly reported complaints included headache, scalp and neck pain, discomfort due to chill, nausea/vomiting and dizziness.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings suggest that the use of scalp cooling, compared to no scalp cooling, reduces the risk of significant hair loss. The acceptability of this cooling system might be limited by a high incidence of reported complaints.
Topics: Alopecia; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scalp
PubMed: 34486683
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202108_26520 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology,... 2021Tofacitinib and ruxolitinib have been used off-label to treat alopecia areata. Although a number of case reports and small studies have been published, there are no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Tofacitinib and ruxolitinib have been used off-label to treat alopecia areata. Although a number of case reports and small studies have been published, there are no comprehensive reviews examining the outcomes of using tofacitinib and ruxolitinib for the treatment of alopecia areata.
AIMS
The aim of the study was to examine the outcome of patients with alopecia areata treated with oral tofacitinib or ruxolitinib in previously published studies.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library was conducted. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed focusing on the Severity of Alopecia Tool 50 achievement rate, the frequency of adverse events and recurrence after discontinuation of treatment.
RESULTS
A total of 1244 studies were identified of which only 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 346 patients in these 12 studies, 288 had received oral tofacitinib and 58 had received oral ruxolitinib. The overall Severity of Alopecia Tool50 achievement rate was 66% (95% confidence interval, 54%-76%). Subgroup analysis revealed that drug choice, mean age, sex ratio and alopecia areata subtype ratio did not significantly affect the treatment response. Infections and laboratory abnormalities were the most common adverse events (98 and 65 cases of 319 patients, respectively). Patients treated for more than six months had a greater frequency of laboratory abnormalities as compared to those treated for shorter durations (24% vs. 7%; P = 0.04). Recurrence of alopecia areata was observed within three months after discontinuation of treatment in the majority (74%) of patients.
LIMITATIONS
This analysis was limited by the small number of observational studies available for review, the heterogeneity of patient characteristics and the lack of long-term data.
CONCLUSION
Both oral tofacitinib and ruxolitinib are effective and well tolerated in the treatment of alopecia areata. Clinicians should be aware of the expected efficacy, adverse events and high recurrence rate of oral JAK inhibitors for alopecia areata to effectively counsel these patients before starting therapy.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Alopecia Areata; Humans; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Recurrence
PubMed: 34379968
DOI: 10.25259/IJDVL_975_19