Patient-Reported Burden of Severe Alopecia Areata: First Results from the Multinational Alopecia Areata Unmet Need Survey.

Purpose: Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by hair loss that has significant psychosocial implications. This study aims to describe the patient-reported burden of severe AA, coping mechanism and information needs using data from the multinational AA Patient Satisfaction and Unmet Need Survey. Patients and Methods: Participants with current or previous ≥50% scalp hair loss (n = 747) were recruited from 11 countries and completed a web-based survey that assessed demographics, clinical characteristics, disease burden and psychosocial impact. Data were stratified according to sex, current age, disease duration and current severity of scalp hair loss. Results: The mean (SD) age of participants was 43.8 (7.1) years, 55.3% were women, and 63.5% reported AA symptoms within 6 months of diagnosis. Most participants had black or brown hair (88.4%), reported a disease duration of 2 years or more (75.6%) and had current scalp hair loss of ≥50% (87.4%). Severe hair loss also extended to eyebrow (46.9%), eyelash (48.7), beard (61.5%) and body hair (73.2%). Participants commonly reported comorbidities such as anxiety (26.1%), depression (18.1%) and sleep problems (28.1%). The Dermatology Life Quality Index revealed a severe impact on quality of life; 86.2% of participants scored >10. Mental health/mood was significantly affected; 55.8% of participants reported a substantial impact. Long-term effects included decreased self-esteem (32.9%), poor mental health (28.1%) and challenges in day-to-day activities (27.2%). Information needs were centered around treatment expectations, mental health, and available treatment options. More severe symptoms and a greater daily impact were reported by women and those with a longer disease duration. Conclusion: The study emphasizes the substantial burden, including impaired quality of life and psychological well-being, of severe AA on the lives of surveyed participants. The findings highlight the importance of comprehensive disease management strategies that address both physical and psychosocial aspects of AA.

Alopecia areata (AA) is a disease that results in hair loss and can greatly affect quality of life and well-being. The authors wanted to understand how this condition affects people's lives and what they need to cope with it. A survey was completed by adults from 11 different countries who had current or past severe AA. The participants were asked about their demographics, their experiences with the condition and how it impacted their daily lives. The results showed that AA has a severe impact on their quality of life, including their mental health and daily activities. Participants also experienced decreased self-esteem and faced challenges in their relationships and daily routines, and many reported feeling anxious, depressed, and having trouble sleeping. Participants found different ways to cope with their condition and expressed a need for realistic expectations about treatment results, information about mental health, and treatment options. The study also found that women and those with a longer duration of AA tended to have more severe symptoms and the impact on their lives was greater. Overall, this study shows that current or previous episodes of severe AA had a significant impact on people's lives, including their mental health and daily activities. It emphasizes the need for information about the condition and treatment options with realistic expectations. The findings help to better understand the experiences of people with AA and may aid the provision of appropriate support and information.

Characteristics and Management of Patients with Alopecia Areata and Selected Comorbid Conditions: Results from a Survey in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune condition that causes non-scarring hair loss and can impose a high psychosocial burden on patients. The presence of comorbid conditions may impact the management of AA in clinical practice. This analysis aims to describe disease characteristics and management of AA in patients with concomitant atopic, autoimmune, and psychiatric comorbid conditions. METHODS: Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their adult patients with AA conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK between October 2021 and June 2022. Patients' disease severity was based on physician's definition. Physician-reported data on demographics, AA clinical characteristics, comorbid conditions, and information related to AA therapies were analyzed. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Overall, 239 dermatologists provided data for 2083 patients, of which 558 patients (27%) had at least one atopic, autoimmune, or psychiatric comorbid conditions. The most common comorbid conditions were atopic dermatitis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and anxiety. The mean (standard deviation) patient age for the three comorbidity groups was 37.6 years (12.1) and 56% of the patients were women (n = 313). In the three comorbidity groups, 51%, 50%, and 55% of patients with atopic, autoimmune, and psychiatric comorbidities had severe AA with disease progression reported as worsening in 30%, 28%, and 30%, respectively, whereas in the group with no comorbidities, 37% were described as having severe AA and 21% getting worse. Scalp hair loss was the primary sign reported across the three groups of comorbid conditions (atopic, 91%; autoimmune, 91%; psychiatric, 88%). Patients with preselected comorbidities presented more frequently AA-related signs and symptoms beyond scalp hair loss than patients without comorbid conditions. These patients were also more likely to receive topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical immunotherapy, conventional systemic immunosuppressants, and oral Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of their AA. CONCLUSION: This analysis provided insights into the burden and management of AA in patients presenting with atopic, autoimmune, and psychiatric comorbid conditions in five European countries.

Treatments for Moderate-to-Severe Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Narrative Review.

Treatments for alopecia areata (AA) have traditionally been prescribed off-label, and there has been no universal agreement on how to best manage the condition. Baricitinib is the first oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with severe AA. As a better understanding of the evidence supporting the management of AA in clinical practice is needed, we conducted a systematic literature review and subsequent narrative review to describe available evidence pertaining to the efficacy and tolerability of treatments currently recommended for adults with moderate-to-severe forms of AA. From 2557 identified records, a total of 53 records were retained for data extraction: 9 reported data from 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, and 44 reported data from unique RCTs with no placebo arm, non-randomized trials, or observational studies. Across drug classes, data were reported heterogeneously, with little consistency of data collection or clinical endpoints used. The most robust evidence was for the JAK inhibitor class, in particular the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor baricitinib. Five RCTs (three for baricitinib) demonstrated a consistent benefit of JAK inhibitor therapy over placebo across various clinical outcomes in adult patients with at least 50% scalp hair loss. Overall, hair regrowth varied widely for the other drug classes and was generally low for patients with moderate-to-severe AA. Relapses were commonly observed during treatment and upon discontinuation. Adverse effects were generally consistent with the known safety profile of each intervention. The heterogeneity observed prevented the conduct of a network meta-analysis or an indirect comparison of different treatments. We found that the current management of patients with moderate-to-severe AA often relies on the use of treatments that have not been well evaluated in clinical trials. The most robust evidence identified supported the use of baricitinib, and other oral JAK inhibitors, in patients with severe AA.

To date, there has been no universal agreement on how to best manage alopecia areata (AA), suggesting that a better understanding of the evidence for the different treatment options is needed. Most of the treatments traditionally used for AA have not been approved for this indication. Baricitinib is the first oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with severe AA. Consequently, we extensively reviewed the available literature for evidence regarding the efficacy and tolerability of treatments currently recommended for adults with moderate-to-severe forms of AA. Although we found many potential reports, only 53 provided the type of information we believed to be relevant, with 9 describing findings from 7 randomized controlled trials versus placebo. Across treatments, there was little consistency of data collection or clinical endpoints used. The most robust evidence was for the JAK inhibitor class, in particular baricitinib, which was consistently more beneficial than placebo across various clinical outcomes in adults with at least 50% scalp hair loss. For the other classes of drugs, hair regrowth varied widely, was generally low for patients with moderate-to-severe hair loss, and commonly did not last. Reported adverse effects were generally as expected for each treatment. We found that the current management of patients with moderate-to-severe AA often relies on the use of treatments that have not been well evaluated in clinical trials. However, strong evidence supports the use of baricitinib, and other oral JAK inhibitors, in patients with severe AA.

Physician- and Patient-Reported Severity and Quality of Life Impact of Alopecia Areata: Results from a Real-World Survey in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) can negatively affect quality of life (QoL) and is associated with increased prevalence of anxiety and depression (vs people without AA). This study compared physician-assessed and patient self-rated severity of AA in a European sample and described the patient-reported burden of AA stratified by physician-assessed severity. METHODS: Real-world data were collected from the Adelphi Real World AA Disease Specific Programme™, a retrospective point-in-time cross-sectional survey of dermatologists and their adult patients with AA in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK). Physicians provided clinical data and an AA severity assessment, according to their own definition of 'mild', 'moderate' and 'severe'. Patients were invited to provide their perception of AA severity and completed patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, including Skindex-16 for AA (Skindex-16 AA), EuroQol-5-dimension questionnaire 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. RESULTS: Data for 2083 patients were collected by 239 physicians; 561 of these patients completed PRO questionnaires. In 78.5% of cases with available data (N = 549), there was alignment between patient and physician-rated AA severity (severity was rated higher by physicians in 15.7% of cases, by patients in 5.8% of cases). Data from all PRO instruments showed an increase in patient-reported burden and work and activity impairment with increasing physician-rated AA severity. For the Skindex-16 AA, the Emotions scale had the worst scores; anxiety/depression was the EQ-5D-5L dimension with the highest percentages of patients reporting any perceived problem. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the significant impact that AA can have beyond hair loss, especially for patients with severe AA. There was substantial physician-patient alignment on severity assessment. Higher physician-rated AA severity was associated with higher levels of patient-reported disease burden, including anxiety and depression, and work and activity impairment. These data may help inform appropriate treatment strategies.

Alopecia areata (AA) can negatively affect quality of life and is associated with increased prevalence of anxiety and depression (vs people without AA). This study used surveys of adult patients with AA in Europe and their dermatologists to compare how doctors and patients assess AA severity. We also looked at how patients rate the overall burden and broader effects of AA (not just hair loss) according to whether their doctor classed their AA as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe'. Data for 2083 patients were collected by 239 doctors; 561 patients completed questionnaires about their AA and its potential effects on their quality of life, mental health and ability to work or perform other activities. In 78.5% of cases (from 549 patients with both patient and doctor-rated severity), patients and their doctors agreed on the same AA severity category (mild, moderate or severe). However, in 15.7% of cases, doctors rated AA severity as being higher than reported by the patient, and in 5.8% of cases the patient classed their AA as being more severe than reported by the doctor. Data from patient questionnaires showed that the burden associated with AA was higher in patients with more severe AA (as per their doctor's own definition of severity); anxiety/depression was the most commonly reported problem related to quality of life. This study highlights the significant impact that AA can have beyond hair loss, especially for patients with severe AA. Information from this study may help to inform appropriate treatment strategies for people with AA.

Scalp hair regrowth is associated with improvements in health-related quality of life and psychological symptoms in patients with severe alopecia areata: results from two randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis assessed association between scalp hair regrowth and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological burden in patients with severe alopecia areata (AA). METHODS: Data were pooled from two phase-3 trials (N = 1200). Patients randomized to once-daily placebo, baricitinib 2-mg, or 4-mg were analyzed independently of treatment allocation, and categorized according to scalp hair regrowth (at Week 36): meaningful regrowth (Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≤20); intermediate regrowth (≥30% SALT improvement [SALT30] at any post-baseline visit to Week 36, but SALT score > 20 at Week 36); no/minimal regrowth (never achieved SALT30). Skindex-16 for AA score change-from-baseline and proportion of patients with baseline Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores ≥8 that shifted to <8 (normal) were assessed. RESULTS: Patients with meaningful regrowth achieved greater improvements in all Skindex-16 AA domains versus no/minimal regrowth. More patients with meaningful versus no/minimal regrowth shifted from HADS ≥8 to <8 (anxiety:46.8% versus 26.4%; depression:52.3% versus 24.0%). Improvements occurred with intermediate regrowth but to a lesser extent versus meaningful regrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe AA and scalp hair regrowth at Week 36 experienced greater improvements in HRQoL and anxiety and depression versus patients with no/minimal regrowth. The highest benefit was observed in patients with meaningful regrowth (SALT score ≤20).ClinicalTrials.gov listing: NCT03570749 and NCT03899259.

A description of alopecia areata in European patients based on real-world survey data: physician-reported characterization of severity and associated treatment utilization.

Alopecia areata (AA), an autoimmune disease -affecting the hair of the scalp, face, and/or body, can entail substantial psychological and physical burden for patients. There is currently no international agreement on how to treat AA and the approach may vary across countries. This study investigated the management of AA in clinical practice. Data from a point-in-time survey conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, between October 2021-June 2022, were analysed for adults with mild, moderate, and severe AA, based on physician assessment. Dermatologists were surveyed about factors used to assess disease severity, physician-reported treatment goals, and treatment patterns for AA, including the use of wigs. In total, 239 dermatologists reported on 2,083 patients. Physicians' severity assessment and treatment goals were predominantly driven by scalp hair loss. Topical and intralesional corticosteroids were the most prescribed treatments for mild and moderate AA. Conventional immunosuppressants, oral Janus kinase inhibitors, and topical immunotherapy use generally increased with AA severity and therapy line. Wig use was greatest for severe AA. The primary reasons for the last treatment change in the moderate and severe groups were worsening of condition, lack of initial efficacy, and loss of response, and for mild group were improvement in condition, lack of initial efficacy, and worsening of condition. Findings were generally similar across countries. This analysis provides insights into the management of AA in five European countries and confirms the need for more effective therapies, especially for patients with severe AA.

Elicitation of Rheumatologist Preferences for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of a First Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Agent.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical guidelines do not provide strong recommendations for the choice of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), and only limited evidence is available on factors influencing rheumatologist treatment decisions. We aimed to describe therapeutic preferences after the failure of a first-line strategy of MTX in simulated cases of patients with RA. METHODS: Fictional but realistic case-vignettes (n = 64) of patients with RA and an inadequate response to MTX were developed with a combination of RA-poor prognostic factors and comorbidities. Physicians were presented with eight vignettes and chose the most and least appropriate therapeutic option from the following six options randomly proposed 3 by 3: (1) replacing MTX with another csDMARD; (2) combining MTX with one or more csDMARDs; (3) adding a bDMARD of either TNF inhibitors (TNFi), tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept (ABA), or rituximab (RTZ). A total of 1605 complete case vignettes were produced and randomly assigned to a representative sample of French rheumatologists. For each vignette, whenever a treatment was preferred, one point was incremented for this treatment; if this treatment was the least desired, one point was removed. Preferences were elicited using a normalized best-worst score. RESULTS: Two hundred and four French rheumatologists participated in the study with each vignette being assessed 20-28 times for a completion rate of 94%. TNFi was the first-choice strategy (80% of vignettes), except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity, where ABA was the first preference (85%). TCZ came third in 83% of the cases. Other options were never preferred and repeatedly yielded negative scores. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a conservative trend with TNFi as the main therapeutic choice for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX. Preference for bDMARD-based strategies increased with the number of RA-poor prognosis factors, whereas an increase in the number of comorbidities resulted in an increased preference for ABA. Understanding clinical decision-making will be particularly important as the therapeutic landscape for RA continues to evolve.

Achieving Pain Control in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Baricitinib or Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate: Results from the RA-BEAM Trial.

The purpose of the study was to assess the proportion of patients who achieve pain relief thresholds, the time needed to reach the thresholds, and the relationship between pain and inflammation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate in RA-BEAM (NCT0170358). A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted, comparing baricitinib (N = 487), adalimumab (N = 330), and placebo (N = 488) plus methotrexate. Pain was evaluated by patient's assessment on a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The following were assessed through a 24-week placebo-controlled period: the proportion of patients who achieved ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief, the time to achieve these pain relief thresholds, remaining pain (VAS ≤ 10 mm, ≤20 mm, or ≤40 mm), and the relationship between inflammation markers and pain relief. Baricitinib-treated patients were more likely (p < 0.05) to achieve ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief than placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients, as early as Week 1 vs. placebo and at Week 4 vs. adalimumab. A greater proportion of baricitinib-treated patients achieved ≤20 mm or ≤40 mm remaining pain vs. placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients. Baricitinib-treated patients tended to demonstrate consistent pain relief independent of levels of inflammation control. In RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, baricitinib provided greater and more rapid pain relief than adalimumab and placebo. Analyses suggest the relationship between inflammation and pain may be different for baricitinib and adalimumab treatments.

Call for action: how to improve use of patient-reported outcomes to guide clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis.

Current guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend early treatment and a treat-to-target goal of remission or low disease activity. Over the past decade, this approach has been extremely successful in reducing disease activity and joint damage in patients with RA. At the same time, however, overall patient perception of well-being appears to have decreased with respect to outcome measures considered important by patients themselves, such as pain, fatigue, physical function and quality of life. The timely and effective use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) could encourage physicians to focus more on the impact of RA on patients and how patients are feeling. This in turn would facilitate shared decision making between patients and physicians, ultimately leading to a more patient-centered approach and improved patient care. Indeed, PROs provide information about individual patients that complements information provided by physical assessment and composite scores, and can also be used to guide patient care, such as determining whether a clinic visit is needed or whether treatment modifications are necessary. This is particularly important for patients who do not achieve the aspirational target of remission or low disease activity with pharmacological treatment. A number of validated PRO questionnaires are available, but how and which PROs should be incorporated into rheumatology clinical practice as part of the decision-making process is still controversial. Combining PROs with technology, such as computer adaptive tests, electronic PRO systems, web-based platforms and patient dashboards, could further aid PRO integration into daily rheumatology clinical practice.

Concomitant Use of Statins in Tocilizumab-Treated Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have decreased survival because of increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population, and treatment with tocilizumab (TCZ) has been shown to increase lipid levels; however, the relationship between lipids and cardiovascular risk is unknown. This post hoc analysis expanded on previously reported 24-week results by characterizing statin use and subsequent changes in lipid parameters in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous TCZ (TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC) over 2 years of treatment. METHODS: Data were collected from patients with moderate to severe active RA who received ≥1 dose of the study drug in seven international, randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 and 4 clinical trials of TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC. Lipid levels and safety events were assessed over 2 years of treatment. Data were summarized for all pooled treatment groups of the intention-to-treat populations in the TCZ-IV and TCZ-SC studies, and results were stratified by concomitant statin use. RESULTS: Data from this descriptive, retrospective, pooled analysis indicated that statins can stabilize lipid levels without a clinically significant increase in adverse events. Approximately 30% of patients in the TCZ treatment arms who never received a statin demonstrated a shift in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from <130 mg/dl at baseline to ≥130 mg/dl at 2 years. However, despite the increased potential cardiovascular risk, <15% of patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl and <35% of patients with a total cholesterol:high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol ratio >5 at 2 years were receiving concomitant statins. CONCLUSION: Concomitant statin use attenuated TCZ-mediated lipid increases; however, a large proportion of TCZ-treated patients potentially at risk of cardiovascular disease were untreated. These findings highlight the need for better understanding of potential risk associated with TCZ-mediated lipid elevations as well as implementation of RA-specific guidelines on the recognition and management of elevated risk of cardiovascular events in patients with RA. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.

Continuous cefazolin infusion to treat bone and joint infections: clinical efficacy, feasibility, safety, and serum and bone concentrations.

Cefazolin has been used for many years to treat bone and joint infections. Because of its time-dependent antimicrobial activity, continuous infusion would potentially be beneficial. We report on the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of prolonged continuous intravenous cefazolin therapy in a cohort of 100 patients, their serum cefazolin levels, and the concomitant bone cefazolin concentrations in 8 of them. This retrospective cohort study included all the patients treated for bone or joint infection with a continuous cefazolin infusion administered over a 12-h period twice daily for >or=2 weeks. Drug monitoring was performed at least twice for all the patients. Serum and bone cefazolin concentrations were determined by standardized disk diffusion microbiological assays. The absence of clinical, biological, and radiological signs of infection after 2 years of follow-up and the same criteria after 1 year of follow-up defined cures and probable cures, respectively. The median treatment duration was 42 days, and the median daily cefazolin dose was 6 g. Half of the patients received parenteral antibiotic therapy on an outpatient basis. Two moderate-grade adverse events were observed. The median serum cefazolin concentrations were 63 microg/ml (range, 13 to 203 microg/ml) and 57 microg/ml (range, 29 to 128 microg/ml) on days 2 to 10 and days 11 to 21, respectively. The median bone cefazolin concentration reached 13.5 microg/g (range, 3.5 to 29 microg/g). The median bone concentration/serum concentration ratio was 0.25 (range, 0.06 to 0.41). Among 88 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months (range, 12 to 53 months), 52 were considered cured and 29 were considered probably cured. Thus, the treatment of bone and joint infections with a prolonged continuous intravenous cefazolin infusion was feasible, effective, well-tolerated, safe, and convenient, making it a strong candidate for home therapy.