-
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 -
European Journal of Dermatology : EJD Oct 2016Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small... (Review)
Review
Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small cell lung, prostate, gastric, head and neck, and ovarian cancers, as well as in the adjuvant setting for operable node-positive breast cancers. Although the true incidence of dermatological adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving taxanes is not known, and has never been prospectively analysed, they clearly represent one of the major AEs associated with these agents. With an increase in the occurrence of cutaneous AEs during treatment with novel targeted and immunological therapies when used in combination with taxanes, a thorough understanding of reactions attributable to this class is imperative. Moreover, identification and management of dermatological AEs is critical for maintaining the quality of life in cancer patients and for minimizing dose modifications of their antineoplastic regimen. This analysis represents a systematic review of the dermatological conditions reported with the use of these drugs, complemented by experience at comprehensive cancer centres. The conditions reported herein include skin, hair, and nail toxicities. Lastly, we describe the dermatological data available for the new, recently FDA-and EMA- approved, solvent-free nab-paclitaxel.
Topics: Alopecia; Antineoplastic Agents; Docetaxel; Drug Eruptions; Edema; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous; Nail Diseases; Paclitaxel; Pigmentation Disorders; Radiodermatitis; Taxoids
PubMed: 27550571
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2016.2833 -
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 -
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 the American Academy of... Jul 2021Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune-mediated disease resulting in nonscarring hair loss. Systematic reviews on the psychosocial and psychiatric comorbidities,...
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune-mediated disease resulting in nonscarring hair loss. Systematic reviews on the psychosocial and psychiatric comorbidities, health-related quality of life, and interventions targeting psychosocial well-being are limited.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the psychosocial comorbidities, health-related quality of life, and treatment options targeting psychosocial well-being in adult and pediatric AA patients.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines within the PubMed database. Specific search terms included, but were not limited to, alopecia areata, psychosocial, psychiatry, and quality of life. Studies were then evaluated for their design and categorized into corresponding levels of evidence according to the guidelines adapted from the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine.
FINDINGS
Seventy-three reports met inclusion criteria, involving approximately 414,319 unique participants. AA patients were found to have psychiatric comorbidities, particularly anxiety and depression. Health-related quality of life is reduced in AA patients, but data on pediatric AA quality of life are limited. Psychotherapy is often recommended as adjuvant treatment.
CONCLUSION
AA has substantial psychosocial impact on patients and results in reduced health-related quality of life. Addressing this should be an active part of treatment.
Topics: Alopecia Areata; Anxiety; Child; Child Behavior Disorders; Comorbidity; Depression; Humans; Mental Disorders; Quality of Life; Suicide
PubMed: 32561373
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.047 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2023Mesotherapy is a technique by which lower doses of therapeutic agents and bioactive substances are administered by intradermal injections to the skin. Through... (Review)
Review
Mesotherapy is a technique by which lower doses of therapeutic agents and bioactive substances are administered by intradermal injections to the skin. Through intradermal injections, mesotherapy can increase the residence time of therapeutic agents in the affected area, thus allowing for the use of lower doses and longer intervals between sessions which may in turn improve the treatment outcome and patient compliance. This systematic review aims to summarize the current literature that evaluates the efficacy of this technique for the treatment of hair loss and provides an overview of the results observed. Of the 416 records identified, 27 articles met the inclusion criteria. To date, mesotherapy using 6 classes of agents and their combinations have been studied; this includes dutasteride, minoxidil, growth factors or autologous suspension, botulinum toxin A, stem cells, and mesh solutions/multivitamins. While several studies report statistically significant improvements in hair growth after treatment, there is currently a lack of standardized regimens. The emergence of adverse effects after mesotherapy has been reported. Further large-scale and controlled clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the utility of mesotherapy for hair loss disorders.
Topics: Humans; Mesotherapy; Alopecia; Minoxidil; Treatment Outcome; Injections, Intradermal
PubMed: 37558233
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2245084 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Jan 2019Treatment of male androgenetic alopecia with 5α-reductase inhibitors is efficacious. However, the risk of adverse sexual effects remains controversial. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatment of male androgenetic alopecia with 5α-reductase inhibitors is efficacious. However, the risk of adverse sexual effects remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the risk of adverse sexual effects due to treatment of androgenetic alopecia in male patients with finasteride, 1 mg/day, or dutasteride, 0.5 mg/day. Fifteen randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials (4,495 subjects) were meta-analysed. Use of 5α-reductase inhibitors carried a 1.57-fold risk of sexual dysfunction (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.19-2.08). The relative risk was 1.66 (95% CI 1.20-2.30) for finasteride and 1.37 (95% CI 0.81-2.32) for dutasteride. Both drugs were associated with an increased risk, although the increase was not statistically significant for dutasteride. As studies into dutasteride were limited, further trials are required. It is important that physicians are aware of, and assess, the possibility of sexual dysfunction in patients treated with 5α-reductase inhibitors.
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Administration, Oral; Alopecia; Dutasteride; Ejaculation; Erectile Dysfunction; Finasteride; Humans; Libido; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sexual Behavior; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological
PubMed: 30206635
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3035 -
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 -
Cells Mar 2023Androgenetic alopecia is a condition that results in hair loss in both men and women. This can have a significant impact on a person's psychological well-being, which... (Review)
Review
Androgenetic alopecia is a condition that results in hair loss in both men and women. This can have a significant impact on a person's psychological well-being, which can lead to a decreased quality of life. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of using stem cells in androgenic alopecia. The search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The review was performed on data pertaining to the efficacy of using different types of stem cells in androgenic alopecia: quantitative results of stem cell usage were compared to the control treatment or, different types of treatment for female and male androgenetic alopecia. Of the outcomes, the density of hair was analyzed. Fourteen articles were selected for this review. During and after treatment with stem cells, no major side effects were reported by patients with alopecia. The use of stem cells in androgenic alopecia seems to be a promising alternative to the standard treatment or it could play the role of complementary therapy to improve the effect of primary treatment. However, these results should be interpreted with caution until they can be reproduced in larger and more representative samples.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Quality of Life; Alopecia; Hair; Stem Cells
PubMed: 36980291
DOI: 10.3390/cells12060951 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenic alopecia, is the most common type of hair loss affecting women. It is characterised by progressive shortening of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenic alopecia, is the most common type of hair loss affecting women. It is characterised by progressive shortening of the duration of the growth phase of the hair with successive hair cycles, and progressive follicular miniaturisation with conversion of terminal to vellus hair follicles (terminal hairs are thicker and longer, while vellus hairs are soft, fine, and short). The frontal hair line may or may not be preserved. Hair loss can have a serious psychological impact on women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of the available options for the treatment of female pattern hair loss in women.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1872), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), PubMed (from 1947), and Web of Science (from 1945). We also searched five trial registries and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of interventions for FPHL in women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and carried out analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 trials, with 5290 participants, of which 25 trials were new to this update. Only five trials were at 'low risk of bias', 26 were at 'unclear risk', and 16 were at 'high risk of bias'.The included trials evaluated a wide range of interventions, and 17 studies evaluated minoxidil. Pooled data from six studies indicated that a greater proportion of participants (157/593) treated with minoxidil (2% and one study with 1%) reported a moderate to marked increase in their hair regrowth when compared with placebo (77/555) (risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 2.47; moderate quality evidence). These results were confirmed by the investigator-rated assessments in seven studies with 1181 participants (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.28; moderate quality evidence). Only one study reported on quality of life (QoL) (260 participants), albeit inadequately (low quality evidence). There was an important increase of 13.18 in total hair count per cm² in the minoxidil group compared to the placebo group (95% CI 10.92 to 15.44; low quality evidence) in eight studies (1242 participants). There were 40/407 adverse events in the twice daily minoxidil 2% group versus 28/320 in the placebo group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; low quality evidence). There was also no statistically significant difference in adverse events between any of the individual concentrations against placebo.Four studies (1006 participants) evaluated minoxidil 2% versus 5%. In one study, 25/57 participants in the minoxidil 2% group experienced moderate to greatly increased hair regrowth versus 22/56 in the 5% group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). In another study, 209 participants experienced no difference based on a visual analogue scale (P = 0.062; low quality evidence). The assessments of the investigators based on three studies (586 participants) were in agreement with these findings (moderate quality evidence). One study assessed QoL (209 participants) and reported limited data (low quality evidence). Four trials (1006 participants) did not show a difference in number of adverse events between the two concentrations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; low quality evidence). Both concentrations did not show a difference in increase in total hair count at end of study in three trials with 631 participants (mean difference (MD) -2.12, 95% CI -5.47 to 1.23; low quality evidence).Three studies investigated finasteride 1 mg compared to placebo. In the finasteride group 30/67 participants experienced improvement compared to 33/70 in the placebo group (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37; low quality evidence). This was consistent with the investigators' assessments (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.90; low quality evidence). QoL was not assessed. Only one study addressed adverse events (137 participants) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.34; low quality evidence). In two studies (219 participants) there was no clinically meaningful difference in change of hair count, whilst one study (12 participants) favoured finasteride (low quality evidence).Two studies (141 participants) evaluated low-level laser comb therapy compared to a sham device. According to the participants, the low-level laser comb was not more effective than the sham device (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.49; and RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.89; moderate quality evidence). However, there was a difference in favour of low-level laser comb for change from baseline in hair count (MD 17.40, 95% CI 9.74 to 25.06; and MD 17.60, 95% CI 11.97 to 23.23; low quality evidence). These studies did not assess QoL and did not report adverse events per treatment arm and only in a generic way (low quality evidence). Low-level laser therapy against sham comparisons in two separate studies also showed an increase in total hair count but with limited further data.Single studies addressed the other comparisons and provided limited evidence of either the efficacy or safety of these interventions, or were unlikely to be examined in future trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although there was a predominance of included studies at unclear to high risk of bias, there was evidence to support the efficacy and safety of topical minoxidil in the treatment of FPHL (mainly moderate to low quality evidence). Furthermore, there was no difference in effect between the minoxidil 2% and 5% with the quality of evidence rated moderate to low for most outcomes. Finasteride was no more effective than placebo (low quality evidence). There were inconsistent results in the studies that evaluated laser devices (moderate to low quality evidence), but there was an improvement in total hair count measured from baseline.Further randomised controlled trials of other widely-used treatments, such as spironolactone, finasteride (different dosages), dutasteride, cyproterone acetate, and laser-based therapy are needed.
Topics: Alopecia; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Finasteride; Hair; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Minoxidil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27225981
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007628.pub4