Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in the treatment of alopecia areata with 0.25% desoximetasone cream

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.

Effectiveness of QR678 and QR678 Neo® with intralesional corticosteroid vs. intralesional corticosteroid alone in the treatment of alopecia areata -A randomized, comparative, prospective study

BACKGROUND

Alopecia areata (AA) is an inflammatory disorder, marked by chronic, persistent, and patchy loss of hair. At present intralesional/topical corticosteroids, Minoxidil solution, and topical immune-therapies are used for treatment. Though all these have side effects and high rate of relapse. As QR678 Neo^® is proved to be effective in hair regrowth in male and female pattern hair loss, the aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of QR678 Neo^® with intralesional steroid therapy vs. intralesional steroid alone in the treatment of AA of scalp in men and women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 participants in age group of 20-50 years with nonscarring patchy hair loss were chosen for the study. Patients were arbitrarily divided into two groups (Group A-intralesional steroid with placebo and Group B-intralesional steroid with QR678 Neo^® ). All the participants were evaluated at baseline, 3 months and 6 months with standard global photography, dermoscopic assessment, and self-evaluation questionnaire at the end of study.

RESULT

Marked improvement was seen in the global assessment score after 6 months (mean- 6.6 SALT) as compared to baseline (38.5 SALT score) in group B. There was significant reduction of black dots, yellow dots, broken hairs, and tapered hair at 6 months on video dermoscopic examination in group B. Also, higher satisfaction was experienced with the treatment in group B patients.

CONCLUSION

QR678 Neo^® in combination with intralesional steroids therapy proved to be significantly beneficial, efficient, and can be considered as safer treatment option for alopecia areata.

Alopecia areata: Current understanding of the pathophysiology and update on therapeutic approaches, featuring the Japanese Dermatological Association guidelines

Alopecia areata (AA) is a relatively common nonscarring hairloss disease characterized by an autoimmune response to anagen hair follicles (HFs). Accumulated evidence suggests that collapse of the HF immune privilege subsequent to triggering events, represented by viral infection, leads to autoimmune response in which autoreactive cytotoxic CD8+NKG2D+ T cells mainly target exposed HF autoantigens. AA had been recognized as type 1 inflammatory disease, but recent investigations have suggested some roles of type 2- and Th17-associated mediators in AA pathogenesis. The significance of psychological stress in AA pathogenesis is less emphasized nowadays, but psychological comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, attract greater interest in AA management. In this regard, the disease severity may not solely be evaluated by the extent of hair loss. Use of trichoscopy markedly improved the resolution of the diagnosis and evaluation of the phase of AA, which is indispensable for the optimization of treatment. For the standardization of AA management, the establishment of guidelines/expert consensus is pivotal. Indeed, the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA) and other societies and expert groups have published guidelines/expert consensus reports, which mostly recommend intralesional/topical corticosteroid administration and contact immunotherapy as first-line treatments, depending on the age, disease severity, and activity of AA. The uniqueness of the JDA guidelines can be found in their descriptions of intravenous corticosteroid pulse therapy, antihistamines, and other miscellaneous domestically conducted treatments. Considering the relatively high incidence of spontaneous regression in mild AA and its intractability in severe subsets, the importance of course observation is also noted. Evidenced-based medicine for AA is currently limited, however, novel therapeutic approaches, represented by JAK inhibitors, are on their way for clinical application. In this review, the latest understanding of the etiopathogenesis and pathophysiology, and update on therapeutic approaches with future perspectives are summarized for AA, following the current version of the JDA AA management guidelines.

Characterizing the willingness to undergo treatment in patients with alopecia areata

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease that results in partial or total balding of the scalp and/or body. Treatments available are minimally effective, have severe side effects, and are often painful. Given these burdens, patients may not feel undergoing treatment is worthwhile. The purpose of this study is to characterize the willingness of patients with alopecia areata to undergo treatment. We found that few patients are willing to undergo treatment at the risk of severe health side effects. The most acceptable form of treatment administration was topical and the least acceptable was injection at the site of hair loss. A majority of patients would only undergo treatment for hair growth that is cosmetically acceptable and the most important site of hair regrowth was the scalp. The willingness to undergo treatment differed significantly by gender, age, time since disease onset, and disease severity. This study offers insight into the preferences of patients with alopecia areata and characteristics that would make treatment widely acceptable. Institutions conducting research on treatment for alopecia areata can use the results of this study to better understand the needs of their target population.

Alopecia Areata: an Update on Etiopathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management

Alopecia areata (AA) is a common chronic tissue-specific autoimmune disease, resulting in hair loss, that affects up to 2% of the general population. The exact pathobiology of AA has still remained elusive, while the common theory is the collapse of the immune privilege of the hair follicle caused by immunological mechanism. Multiple genetic and environment factors contribute to the pathogenesis of AA. There are several clinical treatments for AA, varying from one or multiple well-defined patches to more diffuse or total hair loss of the scalp (alopecia totalis) or hair loss of the entire body (alopecia universalis). The available treatments for AA, such as corticosteroids and other immunomodulators, minoxidil, and contact immunotherapy, are of limited efficacy with a high risk of adverse effects and high recurrence rates, especially for patients with severe AA. Recent insights into the pathogenesis of AA have led to the development of new treatment strategies, such as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, biologics, and several small molecular agents. In addition, modern therapies for AA, including antihistamines, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection, and other novel therapies have been well explored. In this review, we discussed the recent advances in the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of AA.

Italian Guidelines in diagnosis and treatment of alopecia areata

Alopecia areata (AA) is an organ-specific autoimmune disorder that targets anagen phase hair follicles. The course is unpredictable and current available treatments have variable efficacy. Nowadays, there is relatively little evidence on treatment of AA from well-designed clinical trials. Moreover, none of the treatments or devices commonly used to treat AA are specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Italian Study Group for Cutaneous Annexial Disease of the Italian Society of dermatology proposes these Italian guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of Alopecia Areata deeming useful for the daily management of the disease. This article summarizes evidence-based treatment associated with expert-based recommendations.

Fractional Laser-assisted Hair Regrowth and Microneedling for the Treatment of Alopecia Areata: A Review

Alopecia areata (AA) affects approximately 2.1% of the population, with women being affected more often than men. Current therapies consisting of topical corticosteroids or intralesional injections are often the first choices for treatment, but are limited by unsatisfactory outcomes or risks to patients. Recently, fractional lasers and microneedling, with or without the addition of topical agents, have been examined as treatment options. A literature review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of fractional lasers in the treatment of AA. A total of six fractional lasers and two microneedling studies consisting of small prospective and retrospective studies, and case reports were reviewed. The number of trials and participants are limited, but evidence suggests that fractional lasers and microneedling may be effective therapeutic approaches when coupled with topical agents. Larger studies are required to better understand the effects of these treatment modalities for AA.

Alopecia Areata: Review of Epidemiology, Clinical Features, Pathogenesis, and New Treatment Options

Alopecia areata (AA) is a complex autoimmune condition that causes nonscarring hair loss. It typically presents with sharply demarcated round patches of hair loss and may present at any age. In this article, we review the epidemiology, clinical features, pathogenesis, and new treatment options of AA, with a focus on the immunologic mechanism underlying the treatment. While traditional treatment options such as corticosteroids are moderately effective, a better understanding of the disease pathogenesis may lead to the development of new treatments that are more directed and effective against AA. Sources were gathered from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database using the keywords: alopecia, alopecia areata, hair loss, trichoscopy, treatments, pathogenesis, and epidemiology.

Novel therapies for alopecia areata: The era of rational drug development

Treatments for alopecia areata (AA) have evolved over the decades from broad and nonspecific therapies to those that are now more targeted and rationally selected. This was achieved by means of close cooperation and communication between clinicians and basic scientists, which resulted in the elucidation and understanding of the unique pathophysiology of AA. In this review we discuss this evolution and how novel therapies for AA have changed over the decades, what we have in our current arsenal of drugs for this potentially devastating disease, and what the future holds.

A review of monochromatic light devices for the treatment of alopecia areata

There are many laser technologies that are being tested that claim to support hair regrowth for patients with alopecia areata (AA). In this paper, we will determine whether the body of evidence supports the use of devices using monochromatic light sources to treat AA. Articles were gathered from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database using these keywords: lasers, excimer laser, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), low-level light therapy, alopecia, alopecia areata, and hair loss with a category modifier of English. Ten clinical trials and seven case reports/abstracts were assessed. Eight clinical trials and two case reports demonstrated hair regrowth with the 308-nm excimer laser/light in men, women, and children. One case report demonstrated hair regrowth with the ALBA 355® laser. One clinical trial and two case reports demonstrated hair regrowth with LLLT. While two case reports demonstrated hair regrowth with fractional laser therapy, one clinical trial showed no improvement. The 308-nm excimer laser is a safe and effective treatment for men, women, and children with refractory AA of the scalp and beard. Larger, double-blinded clinical trials should be conducted to compare excimer laser therapy to standard treatments. More data is needed to determine the efficacy of LLLT and fractional laser therapy in the treatment of AA.

Best dilution of the best corticosteroid for intralesional injection in the treatment of localized alopecia areata in adults

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy, dermoscopic results and safety of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) and betamethasone dipropionate (BD) injections at different concentrations in localized scalp and beard alopecia.

METHODS

Intralesional injection of BD or TA in three different dilutions; 1/4, 1/8, 1/12 (BD1, BD2, BD3, TA1, TA2, TA3) and Saline (control) was randomly applied to a total of 231 alopecia patches in 83 patients every four weeks in a maximum of six sessions until a hair regrowth score of 4 was achieved. The number of required sessions, sixth-month hair regrowth scores, treatment success rates and dermoscopic data were investigated.

RESULTS

The mean number of required sessions were similar and significantly lower in BD1 and TA1 being 4.21 ± 1.12 and 3.74 ± 0.99, respectively. Dermoscopic examinations revealed similar terminal hair growth rations in Saline (30.3%), BD1 (44.4%) and TA1 (42.9%). However, sixth-month hair regrowth scores, overall treatment success rates and percentage of terminal hair regrowth were similar in BD1 and TA1. However, adverse effects were more common in TA groups (24.3%) than in BD groups (10.6%) at the sixth month.

CONCLUSIONS

BD ¼ dilution (1.25 mg/dL) seems best corticosteroid for intralesional injection in the treatment of localized alopecia areata in adults.

Alopecia areata

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disorder characterized by transient, non-scarring hair loss and preservation of the hair follicle. Hair loss can take many forms ranging from loss in well-defined patches to diffuse or total hair loss, which can affect all hair-bearing sites. Patchy alopecia areata affecting the scalp is the most common type. Alopecia areata affects nearly 2% of the general population at some point during their lifetime. Skin biopsies of affected skin show a lymphocytic infiltrate in and around the bulb or the lower part of the hair follicle in the anagen (hair growth) phase. A breakdown of immune privilege of the hair follicle is thought to be an important driver of alopecia areata. Genetic studies in patients and mouse models have shown that alopecia areata is a complex, polygenic disease. Several genetic susceptibility loci were identified to be associated with signalling pathways that are important to hair follicle cycling and development. Alopecia areata is usually diagnosed based on clinical manifestations, but dermoscopy and histopathology can be helpful. Alopecia areata is difficult to manage medically, but recent advances in understanding the molecular mechanisms have revealed new treatments and the possibility of remission in the near future.

Alopecia areata: an evidence-based treatment update

BACKGROUND

There is no cure for alopecia areata, nor is there any universally proven therapy that induces and sustains remission. Treatment choices are frequently based on disease duration, extent, and activity as well as the age of the patient.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review all randomized controlled studies on the treatment of alopecia areata.

METHODS

We performed a search in the biomedical literature database PubMed, and used the terms 'alopecia areata treatment' and article type 'randomized controlled trials'.

RESULTS

Following this algorithm, we reviewed, analyzed, and reported on 29 trials that examined the efficacy of anthralin, antidepressants, biologics, calcineurin inhibitors, corticosteroids (topical and systemic), minoxidil, prostaglandin analogs, sensitizers, and a miscellaneous group of topical and oral drugs with less scientific evidence (aromatherapy, photodynamic therapy, azelaic acid, garlic gel, bexarotene, triiodothyronine, inosiplex, and total glucosides of paeony).

CONCLUSION

Using the American College of Physicians Guideline grading system, our assessment is that the majority of published randomized controlled studies of alopecia areata are only of moderate quality. A number of treatments were found to be effective, for example, topical and oral corticosteroids and the sensitizing agents diphenylcyclopropenone and dinitrochlorobenzene; however, most studies had major limitations that hinder the interpretation of these results.

The comparison of treatment with clobetasol propionate 0.05% and topical pimecrolimus 1% treatment in the treatment of alopecia areata

BACKGROUND

Alopecia areata (AA) is a non-scarring hair loss.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed the comparison of clobetasol propionate and pimecrolimus efficiency and tolerability in the treatment of AA.

METHODS

The study included a total of 100 consecutive patients with AA. Patients were randomized into four groups. 30 patients used 1% pimecrolimus cream, 30 patients used 0.05% clobetasol propionate cream, 20 patients used petrolatum as placebo. Scalp of 20 patients was divided into two equal areas and one area was treated with 1% pimecrolimus cream and the other area with 0.05% clobetasol propionate cream.

RESULTS

At week 12 of treatment, the recovery rate of the pimecrolimus group was 53.73 ± 44.49 and the recovery score was 3.63 ± 2.07; that of the clobetasol propionate group was 47.00 ± 44.80 and the recovery score was 3.33 ± 2.20; that of the placebo group was 35.50 ± 40.53 and the recovery score was 2.75 ± 1.88. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of the percentage of recovery and the recovery score (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we detected that topical pimecrolimus treatment is as effective as topical corticosteroids and is superior to topical corticosteroids in terms of side effects in the treatment of AA.

Alopecia areata update: part II. Treatment

Various therapeutic agents have been described for the treatment of alopecia areata (AA), but none are curative or preventive. The aim of AA treatment is to suppress the activity of the disease. The high rate of spontaneous remission and the paucity of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies make the evidence-based assessment of these therapies difficult. The second part of this two-part series on AA discusses treatment options in detail and suggests treatment plans according to specific disease presentation. It also reviews recently reported experimental treatment options and potential directions for future disease management.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completing this learning activity, participants should be able to compare the efficacy and safety of various treatment options, formulate a treatment plan tailored to individual patients, and recognize recently described treatments and potential therapeutic approaches.

Alopecia areata: evidence-based treatments

Alopecia areata is a common condition causing nonscarring hair loss. It may be patchy, involve the entire scalp (alopecia totalis) or whole body (alopecia universalis). Patients may recover spontaneously but the disorder can follow a course of recurrent relapses or result in persistent hair loss. Alopecia areata can cause great psychological distress, and the most important aspect of management is counseling the patient about the unpredictable nature and course of the condition as well as the available effective treatments, with details of their side effects. Although many treatments have been shown to stimulate hair growth in alopecia areata, there are limited data on their long-term efficacy and impact on quality of life. We review the evidence for the following commonly used treatments: corticosteroids (topical, intralesional, and systemic), topical sensitizers (diphenylcyclopropenone), psoralen and ultraviolet A phototherapy (PUVA), minoxidil and dithranol.

Interventions for alopecia areata

BACKGROUND

Alopecia areata is a disorder in which there is loss of hair causing patches of baldness but with no scarring of the affected area. It can affect the entire scalp (alopecia totalis) or cause loss of all body hair (alopecia universalis). It is a relatively common condition affecting 0.15% of the population. Although in many cases it can be a self-limiting condition, nevertheless hair loss can often have a severe social and emotional impact.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions used in the management of alopecia areata, alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register in February 2006, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (from 2003 to February 2006), EMBASE (from 2005 to February 2006), PsycINFO (from 1806 to February 2006), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine, from 1985 to February 2006), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, from 1982 to February 2006), and reference lists of articles. We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of both topical and systemic interventions for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, and alopecia universalis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We contacted trial authors for more information. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials were included with a total of 540 participants. Each trial included from 6 to 85 participants and they assessed a range of interventions that included topical and oral corticosteroids, topical ciclosporin, photodynamic therapy and topical minoxidil. Overall, none of the interventions showed significant treatment benefit in terms of hair growth when compared with placebo. We did not find any studies where the participants self-assessed their hair growth or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Few treatments for alopecia areata have been well evaluated in randomised trials. We found no RCTs on the use of diphencyprone, dinitrochlorobenzene, intralesional corticosteroids or dithranol although they are commonly used for the treatment of alopecia areata. Similarly although topical steroids and minoxidil are widely prescribed and appear to be safe, there is no convincing evidence that they are beneficial in the long-term. Most trials have been reported poorly and are so small that any important clinical benefits are inconclusive. There is a desperate need for large well conducted studies that evaluate long-term effects of therapies on quality of life. Considering the possibility of spontaneous remission especially for those in the early stages of the disease, the options of not being treated therapeutically or, depending on individual preference wearing a wig may be alternative ways of dealing with this condition.

[Associated diseases and differential diagnostic considerations in childhood atopic eczema]

Atopic eczema (AE) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease which affects 10 to 20% of children and 1 to 3% of adults. AE is usually diagnosed based on standard criteria such as those of Hanifin and Rajka, whereby the age-related variation must be considered. There are numerous other diseases which go along with AE or show a very similar clinical picture and represent important differential diagnostic considerations including parasitic diseases, immunodeficiency, nutritional diseases, certain neoplastic disorders and various corneal abnormalities. Additionally, it is important to consider diseases which can occur in association with AE, such as keratosis pilaris, alopecia areata or sweat disturbances.

Efficacy and safety of a new clobetasol propionate 0.05% foam in alopecia areata: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical efficacy of topical corticosteroids in alopecia areata (AA) is still controversial. Positive clinical results have been obtained using ointments with occlusive dressing but this approach has a low patient compliance. Recently, a new topical formulation (thermophobic foam: Versafoam) of clobetasol propionate 0.05% has been introduced on the market (Olux, Mipharm, Milan, Italy) (CF). This formulation is easy to apply. After application to the skin the foam quickly evaporates without residues and it has a good patient compliance. In vitro studies have also shown that this formulation enhances the delivery of the active compound through the skin.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of CF in the treatment of moderate to severe AA.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Thirty-four patients with moderate to severe AA (eight men, mean age 40+/-13 years) were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, right-to-left, placebo-controlled, 24-week trial. Alopecia grading score (AGS) was calculated at baseline and after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment using a 0-5 score (0=no alopecia; 5=alopecia totalis). Clobetasol foam and the corresponding placebo foam (PF) were applied twice a day for 5 days/week for 12 weeks (phase 1) using an intrapatient design (right vs. left). From weeks 13 to 24 each enrolled patient continued only with the treatment (both on the right and left site) that was judged to have a greater efficacy than that on the contralateral side (phase 2). The primary outcome of the trial, evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis, was the hair regrowth rate, which was evaluated using a semiquantitative score (RGS) (from 0: no regrowth, to 4: regrowth of 75%).

RESULTS

At baseline the AGS was 4.1 (range: 2-5). Nine (26%) patients prematurely concluded the trial. At the end of phase 1, a greater hair regrowth was observed in 89% of the head sites treated with CF vs. 11% in the sites treated with PF. The RGS was 1.2+/-1.6 in the CF-treated sites and 0.4+/-0.8 in the PF-treated sites (P=0.001). A RGS of 2 (hair regrowth of more than 25%) was observed in 42% CF-treated sites and in 13% of PF-treated sites (P=0.027). In seven subjects (20%) a RGS of 3 to 4 (hair regrowth of 50%) was observed in CF-treated sites. In three subjects (9%) a RGS of 4 (hair regrowth of 75%) was observed in CF-treated sites. In one patient only, in a PF-treated region, a RGS of 3 was observed. The AS was reduced to 3.8 by CF treatment at the end of phase 1 and to 3.3 at the end of phase 2 (P=0.01). From weeks 12 to 24 the treatment with CF induced a further increase in the RGS (from 1.2 to 1.5+/-1.4). Forty-seven per cent of CF-treated patients had a RGS of 2 at the end of the trial. A total of eight patients (25%) at the end of the treatment with CF showed a RGS of 3. Folliculitis occurred in two patients. No significant modifications in cortisol and ACTH blood levels were observed during the trial.

CONCLUSION

This new formulation of clobetasol propionate foam is an effective, safe and well-tolerated topical treatment for AA. This formulation has a good cosmetic acceptance and patient compliance profile.

Alopecia areata treatment with a phototoxic dose of UVA and topical 8-methoxypsoralen

Twenty-five patients with alopecia totalis (AT) or alopecia universalis and 124 patients with alopecia areata (AA) were treated with photochemotherapy, combining topical 8-methoxypsoralen (8-MOP) with UV irradiation of the scalp at a phototoxic dose. The mean energy required was 15 J/cm2 for AA and 42 J/cm2 for AT. Ninety-four patients had multiple bald patches and 12 with AT had complete or > 50% hair regrowth. Positive treatment results did not seem to depend on the age of onset or the duration of the disease. Few side-effects of topical psoralens plus UVA (PUVA) treatment were noted, except a for few days of slight erythema caused by the high dose of UV.

Management of hair loss

The management of patients with hair loss requires a customized plan. Diagnosis, prognosis, psychosocial impact, treatment options, and patient preference are key determinants. This article discusses current agents for the treatment of three commonly encountered nonscarring alopecias: male- and female-pattern hair loss, telogen effluvium, and alopecia areata. Algorithmic approaches to management are provided.

Clobetasol propionate 0.05% under occlusion in the treatment of alopecia totalis/universalis

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of topical steroids in alopecia areata is still discussed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment under occlusion in 28 patients with alopecia areata totalis (AT) or AT/alopecia universalis.

METHODS

A total of 28 patients were instructed to apply 2.5 g of clobetasol propionate to the right side of the scalp every night under occlusion with a plastic film. Treatment was performed 6 days a week for 6 months. When regrowth of terminal hair occurred, treatment was extended over the entire scalp. All patients were followed up for another 6 months.

RESULTS

Of the 28 patients included in the study, 8 were treated successfully (28.5%). Regrowth of terminal hair began on the treated side 6 to 14 weeks after the start of treatment. Of these 8 patients, 3 had a relapse and were not able to maintain hair regrowth.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that clobetasol propionate 0.05% under occlusion is effective in inducing hair regrowth in patients with AT or AT/alopecia universalis. Occurrence of hair regrowth only on the treated half of the scalp clearly shows that efficacy of treatment is a result of a local and not systemic effect of the drug. Although only 17.8% of patients had long-term benefit by treatment, our results were obtained in a population of patients with severe and refractory forms of the disease.

Alopecia areata: treatment of today and tomorrow

It is the aim of this article to review and appraise available data on treatments for alopecia areata (AA) according to the demands of evidence based medicine. Studies evaluating the efficacy of a treatment for AA should include appropriate controls, use cosmetically acceptable hair regrowth as a parameter for treatment success, include patients with AA totalis, universalis or extensive patchy AA, and exclude patients suffering from AA for less than 3 months. Moreover, the treatment must be safe over a prolonged period of time. Among the various therapeutic approaches presently available for AA, only treatment with contact sensitizers such as diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid dibutylester has been shown to be effective in studies that fulfill these criteria. Improved future treatments may be immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory targeting of the autoimmune pathogenesis of AA, or they may otherwise protect hair follicles from the injurious effects of inflammation. Such possible future therapeutic approaches include the incorporation of immunomodulatory agents into liposomes as an improved vehicle; inhibition of apoptosis mediated by the Fas-FasL system; inhibition of the lymphocyte homing receptor CD44v10; induction of tolerance.