Search

Objectives: Genetic association studies on alopecia areata (AA) performed in various populations have shown heterogeneous results. The aim of the current review was to synthesize the results of said studies to estimate the impact of FAS, FASL, PTPN22, CTLA4 and IL2RA gene polymorphisms on AA susceptibility., Design: A systematic literature search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and LILACS databases. Studies published up to June 2020 were included. The results available in the grey literature including the Open Grey and Google Scholar databases were also used. The texts of potentially related studies were screened by individual reviewers. Evidence of publication bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. The quantitative synthesis was performed using the fixed effect model., Results: Out of 1784 articles, we identified 18 relevant articles for the qualitative synthesis and 16 for the quantitative synthesis. In a study of rs2476601 polymorphism of PTPN22 gene, including 1292 cases and 1832 controls, a correlation was found with the risk of developing AA in the allelic model (OR1.49 [95% C:1.13-1.95]), the heterozygous codominant (OR1.44 [95% CI:1:19-1.76]) and dominant model (OR1.43 [95% CI:1.18-1.73]). No association was found between the presence of FASL, PTPN22, CTLA and IL2RA gene polymorphisms with AA susceptibility., Conclusions: The results suggest that the T allele of the single nucleoid polymorphism (SNP) rs2476601 in PTPN22 gene is a risk factor for developing alopecia areata. However, more robust studies defining the ethnic background of the population of origin are required, so that the risk identified in the present study can be validated. Additionally, a greater number of studies is necessary to evaluate the role of the FAS, FASL, PTPN22, CTLA4 and IL2RA genetic variants, given the heterogenous results found in the literature., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of available diagnosis alternatives for Mucosal Leishmaniasis (ML) in Colombian suspected patients. A simulation model of the disease's natural history was built with a decision tree and Markov models. The model´s parameters were identified by systematic review and validated by expert consensus. A bottom-up cost analysis to estimate the costs of diagnostic strategies and treatment per case was performed by reviewing 48 clinical records of patients diagnosed with ML. The diagnostic strategies compared were as follows: 1) no diagnosis; 2) parasite culture, biopsy, indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA), and Montenegro skin test (MST) combined ; 3) parasite culture, biopsy, and IFA combined; 4) PCR-miniexon; and 5) PCR-kDNA. Three scenarios were modeled in patients with ML clinical suspicion, according to ML prevalence scenarios: high, medium and low. Adjusted sensitivity and specificity parameters of a combination of diagnostic tests were estimated with a discrete event simulation (DES) model. For each alternative, the costs and health outcomes were estimated. The time horizon was life expectancy, considering the average age at diagnosis of 31 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated per Disability Life Year (DALY) avoided, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A threshold of willingness to pay (WTP) of three-time gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) (US$ 15,795) and a discount rate of 3% was considered. The analysis perspective was the third payer (Health System). All costs were reported in American dollars as of 2015. PCR- kDNA was the cost-effective alternative in clinical suspicion levels: low, medium and high with ICERs of US$ 7,909.39, US$ 5,559.33 and US$ 4,458.92 per DALY avoided, respectively. ML diagnostic tests based on PCR are cost-effective strategies, regardless of the level of clinical suspicion. PCR-kDNA was the most cost-effective strategy in the competitive scenario with the parameters included in the present model., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.