Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of different JAK inhibitors in the treatment of alopecia areata: a network meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune disease characterized by non-scarring hair loss. With the widespread application of JAK inhibitors in immune-related diseases, attention is being given to their role in the treatment of AA. However, it is unclear which JAK inhibitors have a satisfactory or positive effect on AA. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AA.

Methods

The network meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials as well as a small number of cohort studies. The differences in efficacy and safety between the treatment and control groups were compared.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials, two retrospective studies, and two prospective studies involving 1689 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib significantly improved the response rate of patients compared to placebo [MD = 8.44, 95% CI (3.63, 19.63)] and [MD = 6.94, 95% CI, (1.72, 28.05)],respectively. Oral baricitinib treatment significantly improved the response rate compared to non-oral JAK inhibitor treatment [MD=7.56, 95% CI (1.32,43.36)]. Oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly improved the complete response rate compared to placebo [MD = 12.21, 95% CI (3.41, 43.79)], [MD = 10.16, 95% CI (1.02, 101.54)], and [MD = 9.79, 95% CI, (1.29, 74.27)], respectively. In terms of safety, oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly reduced treatment-emergent adverse event rates compared with conventional steroid treatment [MD = 0.08, 95% CI (0.02, 0.42)], [MD = 0.14, 95% CI (0.04, 0.55)], and [MD = 0.35, 95% CI, (0.14, 0.88)], respectively.

Conclusion

Oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib are excellent options for the treatment of AA owing to their good efficacy and safety profiles. In contrast, non-oral JAK inhibitors do not appear to have satisfactory efficacy in treating AA. However, further studies are required to verify the optimal dose of JAK inhibitors for AA therapy.

SUBMITTER: Wei D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10150113 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Alopecia areata (AA) is a chronic, immune-mediated form of nonscarring alopecia that is multifactorial and results in localized patches. It is often described as a self-limiting condition that results in the spontaneous regrowth of hair in most cases. However, this regrowth may take several months or years to occur in some patients, leading to the development of psychoemotional trauma in those that are affected. Although several therapies for AA have been developed and tested, there is no specific treatment that has been approved, leading to the availability of many off-label conventional treatment options, with very limited responses. More recently, with the advancement of pre-clinical and genetic studies, a greater understanding of the pathomechanisms involved in the development of AA has been uncovered. This has resulted in the introduction of targeted therapies that use small molecules to block specific pathways involved in AA pathophysiology. As such, the use of janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for treatment of AA has emerged. JAK inhibitors block the T-cell mediated inflammatory response thought to be the driving factor behind AA pathogenesis, by inhibiting the janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling pathway, leading to a reversal of hair loss in AA patients. Thus, in an effort to demonstrate the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AA, several studies have been published within recent years. However, the question remains, "Are JAK inhibitors effective and safe in the management of Alopecia Areata?". This review aims to provide a comprehensive report on the role, efficacy, and outcomes of using JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AA. To competently answer the research question highlighted, the most recent, quality articles published over a 10-15-year period were sourced using PubMed, NCBI, Research gate, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and Google scholar. The literature search was primarily focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, in the absence of such, only the most recently published case reports, case series, clinical trials and open-label studies published to date were included.

Project description:BackgroundAlopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by hair loss mediated by CD8+ T cells. There are no reliably effective therapies for AA. Based on recent developments in the understanding of the pathomechanism of AA, JAK inhibitors appear to be a therapeutic option; however, their efficacy for the treatment of AA has not been systematically examined.MethodsThis was a 2-center, open-label, single-arm trial using the pan-JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib citrate, for AA with >50% scalp hair loss, alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU). Tofacitinib (5 mg) was given twice daily for 3 months. Endpoints included regrowth of scalp hair, as assessed by the severity of alopecia tool (SALT), duration of hair growth after completion of therapy, and disease transcriptome.ResultsOf 66 subjects treated, 32% experienced 50% or greater improvement in SALT score. AA and ophiasis subtypes were more responsive than AT and AU subtypes. Shorter duration of disease and histological peribulbar inflammation on pretreatment scalp biopsies were associated with improvement in SALT score. Drug cessation resulted in disease relapse in 8.5 weeks. Adverse events were limited to grade I and II infections. An AA responsiveness to JAK/STAT inhibitors score was developed to segregate responders and nonresponders, and the previously developed AA disease activity index score tracked response to treatment.ConclusionsAt the dose and duration studied, tofacitinib is a safe and effective treatment for severe AA, though it does not result in a durable response. Transcriptome changes reveal unexpected molecular complexity within the disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02197455 and NCT02312882.FundingThis work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases National Institutes of Health grant R01 AR47223 and U01 AR67173, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Fernström Foundation, the Locks of Love Foundation, the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, and the Ranjini and Ajay Poddar Resource Fund for Dermatologic Diseases Research.

Project description:BackgroundMyelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by bone marrow fibrosis associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The therapeutic landscape for MF has advanced with the development of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) like ruxolitinib (RUX), fedratinib (FED), pacritinib (PAC), and momelotinib (MMB), aiming to alleviate symptoms and enhance patient comfort.MethodsA network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of eleven JAKi treatment regimens across nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 2340 participants. Outcomes were evaluated in terms of spleen volume reduction (SVR), total symptom score reduction (TSSR), hematological safety profiles, and overall survival (OS).ResultsRUX and MMB were superior in achieving SVR and TSSR, with significant dose-response relationships observed. PAC and MMB were associated with a decreased risk of grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia compared to other JAKis. However, no substantial benefits in OS were observed with newer JAKis compared to RUX. The poorer OS outcomes with certain PAC dosages were likely influenced by baseline patient characteristics, particularly severe cytopenias.ConclusionThe introduction of JAKis significantly changed the treatment of MF. This meta-analysis reaffirms the core role of RUX and positions MMB as a potentially powerful alternative for treating symptoms and reducing spleen size. Meanwhile, MMB and PAC have a positive effect on anemia in MF while FED is more tolerable for patients with thrombocytopenia. However, it should be noted that these results are influenced by baseline patient characteristics, particularly cytopenias, which affects both management and overall survival. Therefore, there is an urgent need for personalized dosing strategies to optimize the balance between efficacy and safety, with careful consideration of patient-specific factors.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023424179.