Real-world experience quantifying access to JAK inhibitor care for alopecia areata patients: a patient-centered survey study.

Background: Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) therapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape for alopecia areata (AA); however, access may be limited by a lack of insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs. Objective: We aimed to evaluate real-world patient experiences regarding access to JAKi therapy. Methods: We conducted an online patient-centered survey using the National Alopecia Areata Foundation listserv. Results: In total 784 individuals initiated our survey, and 600 completed it in full (76.5%). While more non-White patients considered obtaining JAKi therapy, more White patients reported the use of this medication class. In total, 74.2% lacked insurance coverage or had partial coverage for JAKi, and 52% expressed dissatisfaction with available coverage. However, 52.9% reported delays in starting medication due to insurance approval processes, contributing to worsened AA and related stress. In total, 35% of patients did not try to obtain JAKi therapy due to concerns about costs, and 18.2% discontinued therapy due to financial barriers. Also, 19.8% of patients reported utilizing financial savings to pay for medication, and 55.2% reported using a copay assistance card. Further, 12.2% reported forgoing other necessities to pay for AA expenses. Limitations: Our results are limited by the subjective nature of survey studies. The recency of FDA approval for JAKi therapy may also influence patients' perceptions of access to care. Conclusion: Patients with AA face significant barriers when trying to obtain JAKi therapy, and existing racial inequities may be exacerbated by these barriers. Further advocacy work is needed to improve access to care.

Examining the Uncertainties Surrounding Exosome Therapy in Androgenetic Alopecia: A Call for Evidence-Based Practice.

Hair loss, a pervasive and often distressing condition, affects a substantial number of individuals globally. Although conventional treatments such as hair transplantation, topicals, oral medications, and injectables exist, they have limitations, including the necessity for repeated treatments, potential adverse effects, and cost barriers. Exosome therapy, an innovative and burgeoning option within regenerative medicine, offers a novel approach to hair loss treatment. Exosomes are small vesicles that are produced from the membranes of late-endosomes and secreted by cells, playing a crucial role in intercellular communication. Research on humans is limited,1-4 and animal studies have shown that exosomes derived from various cell types can stimulate hair growth, resulting in increased research and development of exosome therapy for hair loss.5 Establishing a uniform reporting method for exosome therapy is vital as research in this area continues to expand. A standardized approach to research reporting and results is essential for comprehending the underlying mechanisms, safety, and efficacy of exosome therapy. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the current state of exosome therapy for hair loss, including potential advantages, and limitations, as well as directions for future research. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(3)    doi:10.36849/JDD.7603.

Treatment for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia-Delphi consensus recommendations.

BACKGROUND: There is no established standard of care for treating central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), and treatment approaches vary widely. OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus statements regarding the use of various pharmacological therapies in treating adults with CCCA. METHODS: We invited 27 dermatologists with expertise in hair and scalp disorders to participate in a 3-round modified Delphi study between January and March 2023. Statements met strong consensus if 75% of respondents agreed or disagreed. Statements met moderate consensus if 55% or more but less than 75% agreed or disagreed. RESULTS: In round 1, 5 of 33 (15.2%) statements met strong consensus, followed by 9 of 28 (32.1%) in round 2. After the final round 3 meeting, strong consensus was reached for 20 of 70 (28.6%) overall statements. Two statements achieved moderate consensus. LIMITATIONS: This study included only English-speaking, US-based dermatologists and did not consider nonpharmacological therapies. CONCLUSION: Despite varying opinions among dermatologists, consensus was reached for several statements to help clinicians manage CCCA. We also highlight areas that lack expert consensus with the goal of advancing research and therapeutic options for CCCA.

When to expect scalp hair regrowth during treatment of severe alopecia areata with baricitinib: insights from trajectories analyses of patients enrolled in two phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of adults with severe alopecia areata (AA). In the absence of robust data on the patterns of regrowth during treatment of severe AA, there is a gap in the knowledge regarding treatment expectations. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether different clinical response subgroups could be identified in baricitinib-treated patients with severe AA and factors that contribute to these subgroups. METHODS: The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 phase III trials enrolled patients with severe AA [Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≥ 50 (≥ 50% scalp hair loss)]. Patients randomized to baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg retained their treatment allocation for 52 weeks. Based on patterns identified through growth mixture modelling (GMM), patients were categorized into responder subgroups according to when they first achieved ≥ 30% improvement from baseline in SALT score (SALT30). For each responder subgroup, trajectories of response (i.e. achievement of a SALT score ≤ 20, SALT score ≤ 10 and ≥ 50% change from baseline in SALT score) and baseline disease characteristics are reported. RESULTS: Respectively, 515 and 340 patients were randomized to once-daily baricitinib 4 mg and 2 mg at baseline; 69% and 51%, respectively, achieved SALT30 at least once by week 52. Based on GMM findings, we identified three responder subgroups: early (SALT30 by week 12), gradual (SALT30 after week 12-week 36) and late (SALT30 after week 36-week 52). The proportions of early, gradual and late responders and nonresponders were, respectively, 33%, 28%, 8% and 31% among patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg, and 20%, 23%, 9% and 49%, respectively, among those treated with baricitinib 2 mg. Early responders had a shorter trajectory to maximal clinical outcomes (e.g. > 78% achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 by week 36) vs. gradual or late responders. Early responders were more frequent among patients with baseline severe AA (SALT score 50 to < 95) vs. very severe AA (SALT score 95-100). Overall, responders (early to late) were more frequent in patients with short (< 4 years) episodes of hair loss. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses identified early, gradual and late responder subgroups for scalp hair regrowth in baricitinib-treated patients with severe AA, and that these subgroups are influenced by baseline characteristics. Findings from these analyses will help to inform treatment expectations for scalp hair regrowth.