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.

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.

Impact of Biological Agents on Imaging and Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The effect of biologics on the risk for cardiovascular disease in patients with psoriasis is still unclear despite their widespread use. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of licensed biological therapies on imaging and biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk in patients with psoriasis by a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive search of studies published before 1 June 2020 was performed in Medline-Ovid, EMBASE, and CENTRAL using a predefined strategy to identify relevant articles. RESULTS: Five studies were included for the final examination, and two studies were included in the meta-analysis. We did not find a significant reduction in aortic vascular inflammation in patients treated with adalimumab compared with those who received placebo at weeks 12-16. There was no beneficial effect on imaging biomarkers (aortic vascular inflammation or flow-mediated dilatation) of cardiovascular disease risk in patients exposed to biological therapies (adalimumab and secukinumab) compared with those exposed to placebo, except for ustekinumab showing a reduction in aortic vascular inflammation at week 12 but not at week 52 after the open-label extension period. The strongest reduction in blood-based cardiometabolic risk biomarkers was observed with adalimumab (CRP, TNF-α, IL-6, and GlycA) and phototherapy (CRP and IL-6) compared with that observed with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled trials show that ustekinumab reduces aortic vascular inflammation and that TNF-α inhibitors and phototherapy reduce CRP and IL-6. These surrogate marker findings require randomized controlled trials evaluating cardiovascular events to inform clinical practice.

Impact of age-selective vs non-selective physical-distancing measures against coronavirus disease 2019: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: There is a real possibility of successive COVID-19-epidemic waves with devastating consequences. In this context, it has become mandatory to design age-selective measures aimed at achieving an optimal balance between protecting public health and maintaining a viable economic activity. METHODS: We programmed a Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, Removed (SEIR) model in order to introduce epidemiologically relevant age classes into the outbreak-dynamics analysis. The model was fitted to the official death toll and calculated age distribution of deaths in Wuhan using a constrained linear least-squares algorithm. Subsequently, we used synthetic location-specific and age-structured contact matrices to quantify the effect of age-selective interventions both on mortality and on economic activity in Wuhan. For this purpose, we simulated four different scenarios ranging from an absence of measures to age-selective interventions with stronger physical-distancing measures for older individuals. RESULTS: An age-selective strategy could reduce the death toll by >30% compared with the non-selective measures applied during Wuhan's lockdown for the same workforce. Moreover, an alternative age-selective strategy could allow a 5-fold increase in the population working on site without a detrimental impact on the death toll compared with the Wuhan scenario. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that age-selective-distancing measures focused on the older population could have achieved a better balance between COVID-19 mortality and economic activity during the first COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. However, the implications of this need to be interpreted along with considerations of the practical feasibility and potential wider benefits and drawbacks of such a strategy.

Prescribing Habits for Androgenic Alopecia among Dermatologists in Spain in 2019-2020: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, we carried out a cross-sectional study with the aim of describing androgenic alopecia (AGA) prescription habits among dermatologists who practice in Spain. Three years later, we repeated this study with the aim of describing the current situation and comparing it with previous data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study using online questionnaires autocompleted by dermatologists working in Spain. RESULTS: The responses of 243 dermatologists were analyzed. The most common treatments prescribed for MAGA were topical minoxidil (100%), oral finasteride (92.6%), oral dutasteride (75.7%), and oral minoxidil (50.6%). For premenopausal female AGA (FAGA), the most common treatments were topical minoxidil (99%), oral contraceptives (75%), nutricosmetics (71%), and oral minoxidil (67.9%). Lastly, the most common treatments prescribed in patients with postmenopausal FAGA were topical minoxidil (99.2%), oral finasteride (79%), oral durasteride (71.6%), and oral minoxidil (63%). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, AGA is the most frequent alopecia in the trichology clinic. The most common treatments prescribed in male AGA (MAGA) and postmenopausal FAGA were topical minoxidil and oral finasteride, while in premenopausal FAGA, topical minoxidil, oral contraceptives, and nutricosmetics were most commonly prescribed. In the past three years, oral dutasteride and oral minoxidil have increased drastically among the most prescribed therapies for MAGA, premenopausal FAGA, and postmenopausal FAGA.