-
The Journal of Investigative Dermatology May 2023Vitiligo has been reported to be associated with a variety of diseases, but it has not been systematically reviewed. Therefore, we aimed to identify prevalent diseases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vitiligo has been reported to be associated with a variety of diseases, but it has not been systematically reviewed. Therefore, we aimed to identify prevalent diseases in patients with vitiligo and quantify their associations compared with those in healthy controls. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from the inception to June 2022 was conducted. Observational studies on prevalent diseases in patients with vitiligo compared with those in healthy controls were included, whereas studies limited to pediatrics or providing only laboratory results were excluded. A total of 78 studies were eligible for analyses. Patients with vitiligo showed higher risks of having comorbid autoimmune and connective tissue diseases, including alopecia areata (OR = 2.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.50‒2.78), discoid lupus erythematosus (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.74‒3.72), Sjogren's syndrome (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.98‒3.16), myasthenia gravis (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.74‒3.02), systemic lupus erythematosus (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.52‒2.52), and rheumatoid arthritis (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.55‒2.15). Thyroid diseases, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, sensorineural hypoacusis, and ophthalmic abnormalities were also more prevalent in patients with vitiligo. In conclusion, vitiligo is associated with various systemic diseases. Physicians should evaluate and manage potential comorbid conditions in patients with vitiligo.
Topics: Humans; Child; Vitiligo; Comorbidity; Sjogren's Syndrome; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Thyroid Diseases; Autoimmune Diseases
PubMed: 36574529
DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2022.10.021 -
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 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Immune-mediated alopecias (IMAs), a group of hair disorders associated with immunological reactions, remain a therapeutic challenge since available treatments are...
BACKGROUND
Immune-mediated alopecias (IMAs), a group of hair disorders associated with immunological reactions, remain a therapeutic challenge since available treatments are generally unfavorable with potential side effects. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been recently proposed as a treatment option based on several limited-quality studies; however, there is no systematic evaluation of PRP efficacy on IMAs in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
To assess PRP's effects in treating IMAs using a systematic review.
METHODS
Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. A search strategy was designed to retrieve all studies exploring PRP in treating IMAs, including alopecia areata (AA) and primary cicatricial alopecias (PCAs). In addition, all randomized and non-randomized studies reporting subjective and/or objective outcomes of alopecia treatment with PRP were included.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were included, comprising 621 patients with AA and 19 patients with PCAs. PRP had superior efficacy as monotherapy in five studies, comparable to intralesional corticosteroids in six studies in AA treatment. In addition, in the analysis of PCAs, including lymphocytic and neutrophilic subtypes, PRP was efficacious in alleviating disease progression in nine studies.
CONCLUSION
PRP is considered a promising treatment for AA and PCAs in patients who experienced unfavorable outcomes from conventional treatment. However, its clinical application remains to be standardized, and its recommendation as a treatment for IMAs could not be ascertained due to a lack of high-quality evidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=353859], identifier [CRD42022353859].
PubMed: 36507528
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1058431 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Due to the lack of comprehensive evidence based on prospective studies, the efficacy and safety of Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors (including tofacitinib, ruxolitinib,...
Due to the lack of comprehensive evidence based on prospective studies, the efficacy and safety of Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors (including tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, baricitinib, ritlecitinib and brepocitinib) for alopecia areata (AA) are yet to be proved. The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed pursuant to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022303007). Fourteen prospective studies (5 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs), enrolling a total of 1845 patients with AA, were included for quantitative analysis. In RCTs, oral JAK inhibitors resulted in higher good response rate compared with control (RR: 6.86, 95% CI: 2.91-16.16); topical JAK inhibitors did not show any difference compared with control (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.31-3.18). In non-RCTs, the pooled rate of good response to oral, topical and sublingual JAK inhibitors were 63% (95% CI: 44%-80%), 28% (95% CI: 1%-72%) and 11% (95% CI: 1%-29%), respectively. The pooled recurrence rate in patients treated with JAK inhibitors was 54% (95% CI: 39%-69%), mainly due to the withdrawal of JAK inhibitors. In RCTs, no difference was found in the risk of experiencing most kind of adverse events; in non-RCTs, the reported adverse events with high incidence rate were mostly mild and manageable. JAK inhibitors are efficacious and generally well-tolerated in treating AA with oral administration, whereas topical or sublingual administration lacks efficacy. Subgroup analyses indicate that baricitinib, ritlecitinib and brepocitinib seem to have equal efficacy for AA in RCTs; ruxolitinib (vs. tofacitinib) and AA (vs. AT/AU) are associated with better efficacy outcomes in non-RCT. Due to the high recurrence rate after withdrawal of JAK inhibitors, continuous treatment should be considered to maintain efficacy. PROSPERO: CRD 42022303007.
PubMed: 36091777
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.950450 -
Biomedicines Jul 2022Alopecia areata (AA) is a chronic autoimmune condition that can lead to a serious deterioration in patients' quality of life. The first line of treatment in patchy AA is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is a chronic autoimmune condition that can lead to a serious deterioration in patients' quality of life. The first line of treatment in patchy AA is triamcinolone acetonide (TrA); however, the efficacy of the treatment varies greatly. Our aim was to investigate the therapeutic effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of AA.
METHOD
We performed a systematic literature search in four databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) reporting on patients with AA treated with PRP were included, comparing PRP with TrA or a placebo. The primary outcome was the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score.
RESULTS
Our systematic search provided a total of 2747 articles. We identified four studies eligible for quantitative analysis. The pooled mean differences from the four studies did not exhibit a significant difference in the mean change in the SALT score when PRP and TrA groups were compared (MD =-2.04, CI: -4.72-0.65; I = 80.4%, = 0.14).
CONCLUSIONS
PRP is a promising topical, steroid-free treatment modality in the therapy of AA. No significant difference was found between PRP and TrA treatment; however, further high-quality RCTs are needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP treatment and strengthen the quality of evidence.
PubMed: 36009377
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10081829 -
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 -
JAAD International Jun 2022COVID-19 is associated with androgenetic alopecia (AGA), telogen effluvium (TE), and alopecia areata (AA). No studies have analyzed the aggregate data to date. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 is associated with androgenetic alopecia (AGA), telogen effluvium (TE), and alopecia areata (AA). No studies have analyzed the aggregate data to date.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review to characterize the types, incidence, timing, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19-associated alopecia.
METHODS
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase for articles published between November 2019 and August 2021 using the key words "alopecia" or "hair" and COVID-19-related search terms, identifying 41 original articles describing patients with alopecia and COVID-19.
RESULTS
The current review included 1826 patients with alopecia and COVID-19 (mean age, 54.5 years; 54.3% male). The most common types of alopecia identified were AGA (30.7%, 86.4% male), TE (19.8%, 19.3% male), and AA (7.8%, 40.0% male). AGA preceded COVID-19 symptoms. TE was usually newly triggered by COVID-19 (93.6%). AA usually occurred in patients with preexisting disease (95.1%).
LIMITATIONS
Definitions of COVID-19 onset varied. Studies differed in methodology and were susceptible to reporting and sampling bias. Studies with large sample sizes may exert a disproportionate influence on data.
CONCLUSION
AGA may be a risk factor for severe COVID-19, whereas TE presents as a sequela of COVID-19. AA generally occurs as a relapse in patients with preexisting alopecia.
PubMed: 35224518
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdin.2022.02.006 -
JAAD International Jun 2022COVID-19 may play a role in various immune-related dermatologic conditions. The relationship between COVID-19 and alopecia areata remains unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 may play a role in various immune-related dermatologic conditions. The relationship between COVID-19 and alopecia areata remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To review the existing literature for clinical studies and reports investigating the association between new-onset alopecia areata or the exacerbation of preexisting alopecia areata following infection with SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases from inception to October 2021. Included articles assessed alopecia areata following infection with SARS-CoV-2.
RESULTS
Of 402 total articles, 9 were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Six articles described case reports of 7 patients with new-onset alopecia areata following confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2, and 3 articles reported on alopecia areata recurrence or exacerbation following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with preexisting disease. Studies investigating the exacerbation or recurrence of alopecia areata following infection reported mixed findings.
LIMITATIONS
A majority of the included studies were case reports. The heterogeneity of articles precluded data synthesis.
CONCLUSION
Alopecia areata may be a dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19, with cases most often appearing 1 to 2 months following infection. Additional research is necessary to better elucidate the relationship and draw conclusions.
PubMed: 35165668
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdin.2022.02.002 -
JAMA Dermatology Mar 2022Although there have been increased efforts in dermatologic research to improve representation of patient sex, race, and ethnicity, there are limited data evaluating...
IMPORTANCE
Although there have been increased efforts in dermatologic research to improve representation of patient sex, race, and ethnicity, there are limited data evaluating resulting changes.
OBJECTIVE
To characterize the diversity of participants in dermatologic clinical trials conducted in the US published from 2015 to 2020 pertaining to common dermatologic conditions affecting all patient demographic categories compared with findings from 2010-2015.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic literature review through the PubMed database was conducted for randomized clinical trials published between July 1, 2015, and July 1, 2020, using keywords alopecia areata, acne, atopic dermatitis, lichen planus, psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis, and vitiligo. Data collected included distribution of participant demographic characteristics, funding source, and journal type. Reflecting US Census data, studies were defined as unrepresentative of race and ethnicity if they included less than 20% ethnically or racially diverse participants or unrepresentative of sex if they included less than 45% women. Python was used for statistical analysis by χ2 tests or Fisher exact tests.
FINDINGS
A total of 392 randomized clinical trials were included. In comparison with the period from 2010-2015, the reporting rate for race and ethnicity in US studies has increased from 59.8% to 71.9% (P = .05). However, the proportion of reporting articles including at least 20% non-White representation remains unchanged at 38.1% with 37 of 97 reporting randomized clinical trials in 2010-2015 and 53 of 139 reporting randomized clinical trials in 2015-2020 (P = .99). Psoriasis studies included the least diversity, with 12.1% of studies recording at least 20% non-White participants and 29.5% of studies recording at least 45% female participants.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review suggest that reporting racial and ethnic data since 2010-2015 has become more transparent. However, inclusion of representative patient populations may still be considered inadequate, particularly in psoriasis studies. Diversity in clinical trials is important for representation of the affected patient populations, and additional efforts are warranted in support of this endeavor.
Topics: Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatology; Ethnicity; Female; Humans; Male; Psoriasis; Research Design
PubMed: 35080592
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.5596 -
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