Dataset Information

Monotherapy for Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:There are many treatments available for alopecia areata; however, none are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Thus, there is clinician benefit in efficacy comparison. Methods:A network meta-analysis was used to create direct and indirect comparisons of alopecia areata studies in addition to an inconsistency analysis, risk of bias, and quality of evidence assessment. Results:For mild disease, intralesional corticosteroids were ranked the most likely to produce a response at 78.9% according to SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) followed by topical corticosteroids (67.9%), prostaglandin analogs (67.1%), diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP, 63.4%), topical minoxidil (61.2%), and squaric acid dibutylester (SADBE, 35.0%). In contrast, for moderate to severe disease (>50% scalp hair loss), DPCP was the top-ranked treatment (87.9%), followed by laser (77.9%), topical minoxidil (55.5%), topical corticosteroids (50.1%), SADBE (49.7%), and topical tofacitinib (47.6%). There were insufficient eligible trials to include oral tofacitinib in the network. Conclusion:Statistically significant evidence is presented for the use of intralesional and topical corticosteroids for treatment of mild disease and DPCP, laser, SADBE, topical minoxidil and topical corticosteroids for moderate to severe disease. Further controlled trials are required to analyze the relative efficacy of oral tofacitinib.

SUBMITTER: Gupta AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6883433 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Monotherapy for Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Gupta Aditya K AK Carviel Jessie L JL Foley Kelly A KA Shear Neil H NH Piraccini Bianca Maria BM Piguet Vincent V Tosti Antonella A

Skin appendage disorders 20190829 6

<h4>Background</h4>There are many treatments available for alopecia areata; however, none are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Thus, there is clinician benefit in efficacy comparison.<h4>Methods</h4>A network meta-analysis was used to create direct and indirect comparisons of alopecia areata studies in addition to an inconsistency analysis, risk of bias, and quality of evidence assessment.<h4>Results</h4>For mild disease, intralesional corticosteroids were ranked the most likely ...[more]

PMID: 31799258

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceContact immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid dibutyl ester is a preferred treatment for severe alopecia areata; however, the defined criteria for therapeutic hair regrowth and regrowth rate have been highly heterogeneous across studies.ObjectiveTo summarize the clinical outcomes of contact immunotherapy for alopecia areata according to standardized criteria for therapeutic hair regrowth and several prognostic factors.Data sourceA database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed for articles published before November 20, 2017, using the search terms areata, totalis, universalis, sensitizer, sensitization, immunotherapy, DPCP, diphenylcyclopropenone, diphencyprone, SADBE, and squaric.Study selectionClinical trials or observational studies that investigated contact immunotherapy for alopecia areata and subgrouped the disease into patchy alopecia or alopecia totalis/universalis and reported their hair regrowth rates were included, whereas studies that investigated combination therapy or nonconventional protocol and case series or reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe following data were extracted from each of the studies included in this meta-analysis: study year and setting, sensitizer type, study population, study population composition by disease subtype, defined criteria for therapeutic hair regrowth, and regrowth rate of contact immunotherapy. The incidence of adverse effects and recurrence rate were also recorded. A random effects model was used for data synthesis because of the expected high heterogeneity of the included studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was therapeutic hair regrowth rate according to the 4-grade criteria for therapeutic regrowth. Secondary outcomes included incidence of treatment-related adverse effects and recurrence rate.ResultsForty-five studies comprising 2227 patients were analyzed. The overall rate of any hair regrowth was 65.5% among patients with alopecia areata (74.6% in the patchy alopecia and 54.5% in the alopecia totalis/universalis subgroups). However, the complete regrowth rate was 32.3% (24.9% in the patchy alopecia and 32.3% in the alopecia totalis/universalis subgroups). Disease extent of 50% or greater (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 2.26-4.12), atopic history (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.03-2.50), and nail involvement (OR, 2.06; 95% CI. 1.26-3.36) were associated with poorer therapeutic outcome. Recurrence rates were 38.3% among patients receiving maintenance treatment and 49.0% among those not receiving maintenance treatment.Conclusions and relevanceVarious factors were associated with the clinical outcomes of contact immunotherapy for alopecia areata, with significant differences in hair regrowth rates according to the level of expected therapeutic regrowth. Quantitative summarization may improve patient education and lead to better therapeutic adherence and outcomes.

Project description: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.

Project description:Background and objectivesJanus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a therapeutic option for alopecia areata. The risk of potential adverse events is currently debated. In particular, several safety data for JAK inhibitors are extrapolated from a single study in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or adalimumab/etanercept as a comparator. The population of patients with alopecia areata is clinically and immunologically different from persons with rheumatoid arthritis and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are not effective in these patients. The objective of this systematic review was to analyze available data on the safety of various JAK inhibitors in patients with alopecia areata.MethodsThe systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature review was performed by searching PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO databases with the last search on March 13, 2023.ResultsIn total, 36 studies were included. The frequency and odds ratio (OR) for most common adverse events versus placebo were: for baricitinib hypercholesterolemia (18.2% vs 10.5%, OR = 1.9) and headache (6.1% vs 5.1%, OR = 1.2), for brepocitinib elevated creatinine level (27.7% vs 4.3%, OR = 8.6) and acne (10.6% vs 4.3%, OR = 2.7), for ritlecitinib acne (10.4% vs 4.3%, OR = 2.6) and headache (12.5% vs 10.6%, OR = 1.2) and for deuruxolitinib headache (21.4% vs 9.1%, OR = 2.7) and acne (13.6% vs 4.5%, OR = 3.3). The respective numbers for upper respiratory infections were: baricitinib (7.3% vs 7.0%, OR = 1.0) and brepocitinib (23.4% vs 10.6%, OR = 2.6); for nasopharyngitis: ritlecitinib (12.5% vs 12.8%, OR = 1.0) and deuruxolitinib (14.6% vs 2.3%, OR = 7.3).ConclusionsThe most common side effects of JAK inhibitors in patients with alopecia areata were headache and acne. The OR for upper respiratory tract infections varied from over 7-fold increased to comparable to placebo. The risk of serious adverse events was not increased.

Dataset Information

Monotherapy for Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Monotherapy for Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets