Genotyping of the rs1800440 Polymorphism in CYP1B1 Gene and the rs9258883 Polymorphism in HLA-B Gene in a Spanish Cohort of 223 Patients with Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia.

The pathogenesis of frontal fibrosing alopecia has been linked to specific genetic variants. CYP1B1 codes for a component of the cytochrome p450 machinery that is involved in the metabolism of xenobiotic oestrogens. The study of the prevalence of polymorphisms in this gene may help to understand their role in the development of frontal fibrosing alopecia. The aim of this study is to describe the frequency of genetic variations in the alleles HLA-B*07:02 and CYP1B1 in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia. A cross-sectional study was designed to evaluate blood samples from patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia who attended the Dermatology Department at University Hospital Ramón y Cajal (Madrid, Spain), in search of the polymorphisms rs9258883 and rs1800440 in the alleles HLA-B*07:02 and CYP1B1, respectively. A total of 223 patients were included in the study. Among the 83.8% of patients who carried the rs9258883 polymorphism in HLA-B*07:02, 58.7% were heterozygous for this variant and it was not present in 14.8% of the cases. The majority of patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia lacked the protective rs1800440 polymorphism in CYP1B1 (75.2%). This suggests a relevant role of this variant in development of frontal fibrosing alopecia. The genetic approach to this condition might influence patient prognosis and therapy options.

Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4). Thirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks). Amongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy). Considering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%. For the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). For health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). Regarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.

Safety of low-dose oral minoxidil treatment for hair loss. A systematic review and pooled-analysis of individual patient data.

low dose oral minoxidil (OM) is an increasingly used treatment for androgenetic alopecia and other types of hair loss. to analyze available data of patients treated with OM, focusing on safety and adverse effects. a search in PubMed and EMBASE was performed for studies reporting the treatment of alopecia with OM. Individual patient data available for pooled-analysis were sex, dose of OM, presence of hypertrichosis and lower limb edema. 14 studies including 442 patients were analyzed. OM was used at doses between 0.25 and 5 mg, for eight different types of alopecia. Hypertrichosis was observed in 24% of patients. All doses had an increased odds ratio of hypertrichosis, compared to 0.25 to 0.5 mg (P < .001). Pedal edema was observed in 2% and was also associated with higher doses of OM (P = .009). Postural hypotension and heart rate alterations occurred only in 1.1% and 1.3% of the patients, respectively. Efficacy of OM could not be analyzed due to heterogeneous studies. However, four studies using OM for androgenetic alopecia reported a clinical response in 70% to 100% of the patients. Low dose OM is a safe and well-tolerated treatment for hair loss, presenting a lower adverse effect rate than standard doses.

Severe recurrent aphthous stomatitis treated with adalimumab: A case report in a teenage patient.

Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is a chronic disorder of unknown etiology characterized by recurring ulcers involving the oral mucosa in patients with no other manifestations. It is a common cause of oral ulcers in children. In its major form, RAS can be a severe and disabling disorder due to pain and scarring, and poses a therapeutic challenge. Therapies for major RAS include prednisone, thalidomide, colchicine, and dapsone. However, many patients do not achieve adequate control of the disease with them (J Clin Diagn Res, 10, 2016 and ZE08). We report a case of severe RAS in a teenager with a dramatic response to adalimumab.