Use of autologous platelet-rich plasma in androgenetic alopecia in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Medical and Surgical Specialties: Quality, Evaluation, Evidence, and Enforcement

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used in various medical and surgical specialties for its regenerative properties, including aesthetics (facial rejuvenation, hair restoration, and skin tightening) and orthopedics (treatment of tendinitis and osteoarthritis). However, the inconsistent literature on PRP's efficacy and safety leads to critical knowledge gaps. This systematic review evaluates quality control measures in PRP preparation and application and explores the regulatory environment governing its clinical use. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, for studies published from January 2020 to April 2024. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving human participants undergoing PRP treatment for aesthetic or regenerative purposes. Key parameters such as the PRP preparation methods, platelet concentration, and quality control measures were analyzed. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024557669). Results: Out of 75 RCTs involving 5726 patients, the review identified significant variability in PRP preparation methods and application techniques, including differences in centrifugation protocols and platelet concentration levels. A new evidence-based scoring system, the William-Eqram Scoring System for PRP Quality Reporting (WESS-PQR), was proposed to address these inconsistencies. Correlation analysis revealed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.79) between proper temperature control during preparation and PRP efficacy. Initial platelet count assessment showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.57) with efficacy. Conclusions: Standardized PRP preparation protocols and robust regulatory frameworks are urgently needed to ensure the safety and efficacy of PRP treatments. The proposed WESS-PQR scoring system can serve as a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers, promoting consistency and reliability in PRP applications.

Is autologous platelet-rich plasma capable of increasing hair density in patients with androgenic alopecia? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials⋆

FUNDAMENTALS

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been progressively more used in androgenetic alopecia (AGA).

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to evaluate PRP efficacy compared to placebo in AGA.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted across seven databases, until 01/04/2023. Randomized clinical trials focusing on AGA and PRP use to increase hair density were included. Patients aged between 15 and 63 years, diagnosed with AGA characterized by Norwood I‒VII and Ludwig I‒III scales, were included. Studies with a sample size <10, lacking PRP processing method, focusing on complementary therapies or other alopecias, were excluded. The authors conducted subgroup analysis for activator, spin method, study design, risk of bias, and gender. Meta-regression was conducted for activator, spin method, design, and gender. The authors used GRADEpro to assess evidence certainty and the RoB-2 tool for risk of bias. Asymmetry was measured through a Funnel plot followed by Egger's test. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023407334).

RESULTS

The authors screened 555 registers and included fourteen studies involving 431 patients for qualitative synthesis, with 13 studies included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated a mean difference of 27.55 hairs/cm2 and 95% CI (14.04; 41.06), I2 = 95.99%, p < 0.05. Hair diameter meta-analysis presented a mean difference of 2.02 μm, 95% CI (-0.85 μm; 4.88 μm), and I2 = 77.11% (p = 0.02). That is, low quality evidence.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Studies were highly heterogeneous, of low quality, and presented evident publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly heterogeneous studies with publication bias suggest PRP effectively increases hair density in AGA, so further high-quality randomized clinical trials are recommended to strengthen the evidence.

Medical Treatment for Androgenetic Alopecia

Androgenetic alopecia is a common type of hair loss, which is generally influenced by genetic factors and systemic androgens resulting in follicular miniaturization.1 It can cause cosmetic problems leading to psychological distress among affected men and women. Effective standard medical treatments available are topical minoxidil 2 to 5%, oral finasteride, oral dutasteride, and hair transplantation.1 However, some patients do not achieve favorable results with standard treatments. For these reasons, other novel treatments have been developed, including new medications, regenerative medicines (autologous platelet-rich plasma, adipose-derived stem cells, micrograft generation, and exosome), and low-level laser therapy.

Evaluation of the effects of adding an adipose tissue-derived stromal vascular fraction to platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells derived from adipose tissue and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are among novel treatments for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). We aimed to investigate the effect of adding SVF to PRP and compare it to administering PRP injection alone.

METHODS

Eighteen patients were randomly divided into two groups of nine. The PRP group was treated with PRP at all three visits at 1-month intervals, while the SVF-PRP group received an SVF injection on the first visit and a PRP injection on the second and third visits. Each group was evaluated at baseline and 20 weeks after the therapy's initiation.

RESULTS

Changes in mean hair diameter and hair count compared to baseline were significant in both groups. The PRP group experienced a greater increase in mean hair count than the SVF-PRP group, and the SVF-PRP group had a marginally greater increase in hair diameter than the PRP group. These differences were not statistically significant compared to each other. The patient and physician assessment scores exceeded the mean (on a scale from 0: poor to 3: excellent) in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding one SVF injection to two PRP treatment sessions versus three PRP injections alone had no significant difference in evaluated variables. If additional research demonstrates the same results, we suggest that multiple SVF injection sessions may be required to produce a statistically significant difference compared to PRP injection alone. Moreover, considering lower cost and greater accessibility of PRP, it can be used before SVF in the treatment of AGA.