Search

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the Alopecia Areata Consensus of Experts study, which presented results of an international expert opinion on treatments for alopecia areata. OBJECTIVE: To report the results of the Alopecia Areata Consensus of Experts international expert opinion on diagnosis and laboratory evaluation for alopecia areata. METHODS: Fifty hair experts from 5 continents were invited to participate in a 3-round Delphi process. Consensus threshold was set at greater than or equal to 66%. RESULTS: Of 148 questions, expert consensus was achieved in 82 (55%). Round 1 consensus was achieved in 10 of 148 questions (7%). Round 2 achieved consensus in 47 of 77 questions (61%). The final face-to-face achieved consensus in 25 of 32 questions (78%). Consensus was greatest for laboratory evaluation (12 of 14 questions [86%]), followed by diagnosis (11 of 14 questions [79%]) of alopecia areata. Overall, etiopathogenesis achieved the least category consensus (31 of 68 questions [46%]). LIMITATIONS: The study had low representation from Africa, South America, and Asia. CONCLUSION: There is expert consensus on aspects of epidemiology, etiopathogenesis, clinical features, diagnosis, laboratory evaluation, and prognostic indicators of alopecia areata. The study also highlights areas where future clinical research could be directed to address unresolved hypotheses in alopecia areata patient care.

IMPORTANCE: A recent expert consensus exercise emphasized the importance of developing a global network of patient registries for alopecia areata to redress the paucity of comparable, real-world data regarding the effectiveness and safety of existing and emerging therapies for alopecia areata. OBJECTIVE: To generate core domains and domain items for a global network of alopecia areata patient registries. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Sixty-six participants, representing physicians, patient organizations, scientists, the pharmaceutical industry, and pharmacoeconomic experts, participated in a 3-round eDelphi process, culminating in a face-to-face meeting at the World Congress of Dermatology, Milan, Italy, June 14, 2019. FINDINGS: Ninety-two core data items, across 25 domains, achieved consensus agreement. Twenty further noncore items were retained to facilitate data harmonization in centers that wish to record them. Broad representation across multiple stakeholder groups was sought; however, the opinion of physicians was overrepresented. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study identifies the domains and domain items required to develop a global network of alopecia areata registries. These domains will facilitate a standardized approach that will enable the recording of a comprehensive, comparable data set required to oversee the introduction of new therapies and harness real-world evidence from existing therapies at a time when the alopecia areata treatment paradigm is being radically and positively disrupted. Reuse of similar, existing frameworks in atopic dermatitis, produced by the Treatment of Atopic Eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce, increases the potential to reuse existing resources, creates opportunities for comparison of data across dermatology subspecialty disease areas, and supports the concept of data harmonization.

BACKGROUND: Fibrosing alopecia in a pattern distribution (FAPD) is a primary cicatricial alopecia considered a subtype of lichen planopilaris (LPP). OBJECTIVE: The clinical and histopathological features, and treatment response of 24 female patients with FAPD were evaluated. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, histopathological and treatment data of patients with FAPD were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: Twenty-four women were included (mean age 60.7 years). The mean Lichen Planopilaris Activity Index score was 1.50, and the median Sinclair grade was 3. Twelve patients had diffuse alopecia in the centroparietal region, four had frontal accentuation and eight had vertex accentuation of hair loss. Eight had associated loss of facial hair. Predominant trichoscopic features included hair shaft diameter variability (100%), perifollicular erythema and/or scaling (95%) and loss of follicular ostia (95%). Histopathological examination revealed features of scarring alopecia with interface changes in follicular epithelia mainly targeting terminal and intermediate hairs, and less frequently, vellus hairs. Treatment with hair growth-promoting, anti-inflammatory and anti-androgen agents arrested disease progression in 14 patients and resulted in hair regrowth in two patients. Six patients had progression of their hair loss in spite of treatment. LIMITATIONS: Referral bias to a specialist hair clinic, retrospective design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: We present clinicopathological features of FAPD which can aid in the diagnosis of this insidious scarring alopecia. Our findings suggest a more favourable outcome if treatment is initiated in early stages of the disease.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a patterned primary cicatricial alopecia that was first described in 1994. Once rare, the incidence of FFA has increased dramatically, representing the current most common cause of cicatricial alopecia worldwide. FFA typically begins in postmenopausal women with symmetrical, progressive recession of the frontotemporal hairline together with bilateral loss of the eyebrows. FFA has a distinctive clinical phenotype, which remains a challenge. The histology is identical to lichen planopilaris (LPP), but only a small number of patients have coincidental LPP, usually of the scalp. The vast majority of patients have no evidence of lichen planus elsewhere, and the symmetry and patterned nature of the hair loss are unusual for LPP. Familial cases of FFA are reported, and gene associations have been identified in population studies; however, the pathophysiology remains controversial. Without treatment, FFA is slowly progressive, and although many treatments have been prescribed, the response is often disappointing. We review the pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical features, histology, and treatment of FFA.

BACKGROUND: The major concern regarding the use of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for the treatment of hair loss is the potential risk of systemic adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety of LDOM for the treatment of hair loss in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study of patients treated with LDOM for at least 3 months for any type of alopecia. RESULTS: A total of 1404 patients (943 women [67.2%] and 461 men [32.8%]) with a mean age of 43 years (range 8-86) were included. The dose of LDOM was titrated in 1065 patients, allowing the analysis of 2469 different cases. The most frequent adverse effect was hypertrichosis (15.1%), which led to treatment withdrawal in 14 patients (0.5%). Systemic adverse effects included lightheadedness (1.7%), fluid retention (1.3%), tachycardia (0.9%), headache (0.4%), periorbital edema (0.3%), and insomnia (0.2%), leading to drug discontinuation in 29 patients (1.2%). No life-threatening adverse effects were observed. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design and lack of a control group. CONCLUSION: LDOM has a good safety profile as a treatment for hair loss. Systemic adverse effects were infrequent and only 1.7% of patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse effects.

Introduction: Androgenetic alopecia is a common hair loss disorder affecting up to 80% of males by the age of 80. It is characterized by androgen related progressive thinning of hair in a defined pattern. It results in diminished self-esteem, reduced confidence and distress in affected men, irrespective of age or stage of baldness. An effective treatment for hair baldness is needed.Areas covered: In androgenetic alopecia, hair follicles undergo progressive miniaturization. Genetic factors and androgens are key role-players in disease pathogenesis. Herein the authors review the pharmacologic treatment of androgenetic alopecia, which involves 5 alpha reductase inhibitors, minoxidil and prostaglandins. Non-pharmacologic approaches are also explored.Expert opinion: Androgenetic alopecia progresses over time and although the current available medical treatments like finasteride and minoxidil are effective in arresting the progression of the disease, they allow only partial regrowth of hair at its best. Early treatment achieves a more optimal outcome. Non-pharmacologic treatments like PRP can be considered in patients refractory to medical treatment.Abbreviations: MPHL: male pattern hair loss; AGA: androgenetic alopecia; DHT: dihydrotestosterone; 5AR: 5-alpha-reductase; VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor; PG's: prostaglandins (PG's); PGD2R: prostaglandin D2 receptor; VPA: valproic aid; SR: Serenoa Repens; PRP: platelet-rich plasma; PDGF: platelet derived growth factor; TGF: transforming growth factor; ERK: extracellular signal-regulated kinase; PKB: protein kinase B; LLLT: low-level laser therapy; ROS: reactive oxygen species; RCT: randomized control trial; SFRP1: secreted frizzled related protein 1; DP: dermal papilla; PDE5: phosphodiesterase 5.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review failed to identify any systemic therapy used in alopecia areata (AA) where use is supported by robust evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: To produce an international consensus statement on the use and utility of various treatments for AA. METHODS: Fifty hair experts from 5 continents were invited to participate in a 3-round Delphi process. Agreement of 66% or greater was considered consensus. RESULTS: In the first round, consensus was achieved in 22 of 423 (5%) questions. After a face-to-face meeting in round 3, overall, consensus was achieved for only 130 (33%) treatment-specific questions. There was greater consensus for intralesional treatment of AA (19 [68%]) followed by topical treatment (25 [43%]). Consensus was achieved in 45 (36%) questions pertaining to systemic therapies in AA. The categories with the least consensus were phototherapy and nonprescription therapies. LIMITATIONS: The study included a comprehensive list of systemic treatments for AA but not all treatments used. CONCLUSION: Despite divergent opinions among experts, consensus was achieved on a number of pertinent questions. The concluding statement also highlights areas where expert consensus is lacking and where an international patient registry could enable further research.