Treatment outcome of oral tofacitinib and ruxolitinib in patients with alopecia areata: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tofacitinib in Pediatric Alopecia Areata Totalis and Alopecia Universalis: A Retrospective Analysis From India

Alopecia areata totalis and universalis are disabling conditions and therapeutically challenging as they are refractory to conventional options. Tofacitinib is a Janus-kinase (JAK) inhibitor utilized to treat alopecia areata (AA) as an off-label drug. In India, FDA-approved JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and ritlecitinib are not available. There are only a few case reports on tofacitinib in AA in the Indian population. We present the data of 9 pediatric cases of clinically and histologically proven alopecia areata totalis (AT) and alopecia universalis (AU), for whom oral tofacitinib was given after baseline investigations. The following parameters were analysed: Photographic image and severity of alopecia tool (SALT) score at baseline, 3 months and 6 months, and Children Dermatology Life Quality Index (cDLQI) at baseline and 6 months. The mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD) of the SALT score and cDLQI(M ± SD) at baseline were 95 ± 5 and 17 ± 2. At weeks 4 and weeks 12, the SALT (M ± SD) score was 92.7 ± 6.1 and 34.35 ± 11.16, respectively. At weeks 24, the SALT (M ± SD) score and cDLQI (M ± SD) were 3.33 ± 5 and 6 ± 2. The final reduction in SALT score from the baseline was 100% in 6/9 cases (66.67%), 75% to 99% in 3/9 (22.23%), and 50 to 75% in 1/9 (11.12%). We also observed minimal adverse effects (one child developed herpes zoster) with tofacitinib. Our study demonstrates that oral tofacitinib represents a viable modality in managing difficult-to-treat pediatric AA, such as AT and AU, with a good safety profile.

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.

Selective Janus kinase 1 inhibition resolves inflammation and restores hair growth offering a viable treatment option for alopecia areata

Background

Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibition has recently demonstrated therapeutic efficacy in both restoring hair growth and resolving inflammation in Alopecia Areata (AA). These effects are dose dependent and mainly efficacious at ranges close to a questionable risk profile.

Objectives

We explored the possibility to separate the beneficial and adverse effects of JAK inhibition by selectively inhibiting JAK1 and thereby avoiding side effects associated with JAK2 blockade.

Methods

The C3H/HeJ mouse model of AA was used to demonstrate therapeutic efficacy in vivo with different regimens of a selection of JAK inhibitors in regards to systemic versus local drug exposure. Human peripheral blood lymphocytes were stimulated in vitro to demonstrate translation to the human situation.

Results

We demonstrate that selective inhibition of JAK1 produces fast resolution of inflammation and complete restoration of hair growth in the C3H/HeJ mouse model of AA. Furthermore, we show that topical treatment does not restore hair growth and that treatment needs to be extended well beyond that of restored hair growth in order to reach treatment-free remission. For translatability to human disease, we show that cytokines involved in AA pathogenesis are similarly inhibited by selective JAK1 and pan-JAK inhibition in stimulated human peripheral lymphocytes and specifically in CD8+ T cells.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that systemic exposure is required for efficacy in AA and we propose that a selective JAK1 inhibitor will offer a treatment option with a superior safety profile to pan-JAK inhibitors for these patients.

Prescription Pattern of Tofacitinib for Alopecia Areata Among the Dermatologists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction Alopecia areata (AA) is a complex autoimmune condition that causes nonscarring hair loss. In Saudi Arabia, AA accounts for 1-2% of new dermatological outpatient visits. It typically presents with sharply demarcated round patches of hair loss and may present at any age. Traditional medical therapies include corticosteroids and immunotherapy. Choosing the ideal treatment depends on multiple factors such as patient age, disease severity, efficacy, side effects, and remission rate. Recent medications that have been used for treating AA are Janus kinase inhibitors. Aim The aim of the study is to assess the awareness and attitude of dermatologists and their use of Tofacitinib in treating AA. Method A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019 across 14 major cities in Saudi Arabia. A self-administered online questionnaire was specifically developed and used. Dermatologists from government hospitals and private clinics were included through non-probability convenience sampling. The collected data was entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS program version 24. Results In total, out of 546 Dermatologists across Saudi Arabia who responded to the questionnaire, 127 (23.2%) physicians prescribed Tofacitinib in their practice. Out of those who prescribed the drug for AA cases, 58 dermatologists (45.6%) prescribed Tofacitinib after the failure of steroid injections. Among the 127 dermatologists who have utilized Tofacitinib in their practice, 92 (72.4%) believe that Tofacitinib is effective in treating AA. Almost 200 (47.7%) Dermatologists who never prescribed Tofacitinib reported that the main reason was due to the unavailability of the drug in the clinic they were practicing. Conclusions To conclude, out of 546 dermatologists working in Saudi Arabia, 127 (23.2%) prescribe Tofacitinib to treat AA. Ninety-two (72.4%) of the participants reported the effectiveness of Tofacitinib. Two hundred (47.7%) dermatologists who never prescribe Tofacitinib reported that the main reason was due to the unavailability. However, this would raise the need for more research regarding JAK inhibitors generally and Tofacitinib specifically, focusing on the effectiveness versus the side effects of Tofacitinib.

Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Alopecia Areata in Korea: Part II Systemic Treatment

BACKGROUND

Alopecia areata (AA) is a chronic disease with an unpredictable course and can have a severe psychological impact on an individual.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence and consensus-based statements regarding the treatment of patients with AA in Korea.

METHODS

We searched for relevant studies from inception to May 2021 regarding the systemic treatment of AA. Evidence-based recommendations were also prepared. The evidence for each statement was graded and classified according to the strength of the recommendations. Hair experts from the Korean Hair Research Society (KHRS) voted on the statement, and an agreement of 75% or greater was considered as having reached consensus.

RESULTS

Current evidence supports the efficacy of systemic corticosteroids, oral cyclosporine monotherapy or combination with systemic corticosteroids, and oral Janus kinase inhibitors in severe AA patients. Systemic steroids may be considered for pediatric patients with severe AA. A consensus was achieved in three out of nine (33.3%), and one out of three (33.3%) statements pertaining to systemic treatment in adult and pediatric AA, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The present study produced up-to-date, evidence-based treatment guidelines for AA associated with the consensus obtained by experts based on the Korean healthcare system.

Recent advances in the genetics of alopecia areata

Alopecia areata (AA) is a common autoimmune-mediated hair loss disorder in humans with an estimated lifetime risk of approximately 2 %. Episodes of hair loss usually begin with isolated hairless patches that may progress to complete hair loss over the entire body. A familial occurrence of AA is well established, with recurrence risks of about 6-8 % in first-degree relatives. AA is a multifactorial disorder involving both environmental and genetic risk factors. Previous research has identified 14 susceptibility loci, most of which implicate genes involved in the immune response. The following review presents a summary of the latest findings from genome-wide association, sequencing and gene expression studies of AA, as well as their contribution to the recent therapeutic developments.

Effectiveness and safety of baricitinib in patients with alopecia areata: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Since there is now no medication available that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune condition that has a detrimental impact on individuals. Recent clinical trials using baricitinib demonstrated that it may be effective in treating AA. This meta-analysis was done to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of baricitinib in comparison to placebo.

METHODS

Author looked through Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, for all published, randomized, clinical trials.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 1282 participants from two citations (reporting three stand-alone studies). In term of SALT score, baricitinib significantly outperformed placebo; MD = -34.07, 95% CI [-37.90, -30.23], p < .00001. Additionally, the proportion of patients in the baricitinib group that attained SALT ≤ 20 was significantly higher than in the placebo group; RR = 6.41, 95% CI [4.57, 8.98], p < .00001. The results of the safety analysis revealed no significant differences between the baricitinib and placebo groups for any of the outcomes with the exception of acne, which was significantly higher in the placebo group when compared to the baricitinib group (RR= 4.79, 95% CI [2.38, 9.66], p .0001).

CONCLUSION

When compared to placebo, baricitinib is an effective and well-tolerated medication for the treatment of AA.

Alopecia Areata: A Review of the Role of Oxidative Stress, Possible Biomarkers, and Potential Novel Therapeutic Approaches

Alopecia areata (AA) is a dermatological condition characterized by non-scarring hair loss. Exact etiopathogenesis of AA is still unknown although it is known that several factors contribute to the collapse of the hair-follicle (HF)-immune-privileged (IP) site. Oxidative stress (OS) plays an important role in skin diseases. The aim of this review was to clarify the role of OS in AA pathogenesis and diagnosis, and to discuss potential treatment options. Oxidative-stress markers are altered in serum and skin samples of patients with AA, confirming a general pro-oxidative status in patients with AA. OS induces MHC class I chain-related A (MICA) expression in HF keratinocytes that activates the receptor NKG2D, expressed in NK cells and CD8+ T cytotoxic cells leading to destabilization of the HF immune-privileged site through the production of IFN-γ that stimulates JAK1 and JAK2 pathways. OS also activates the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway, an antioxidant system that contributes to skin homeostasis. In addition, a decrease of ATG5 and LC3B in the hair matrix and an increase in p62 levels indicates a reduction of intrafollicular autophagy during the evolution of AA. Potential biomarkers of OS in AA could be: malondialdehyde (MDA), advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), and ischemic-modified albumin (IMA). JAK inhibitors are the new frontier in treatment of AA and the use of nutraceuticals that modulate the OS balance, in combination with standard treatments, represent promising therapeutic tools.

Efficacy and safety of different JAK inhibitors in the treatment of alopecia areata: a network meta-analysis

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.

Various Application of Tofacitinib and Ruxolitinib (Janus Kinase Inhibitors) in Dermatology and Rheumatology: A Review of Current Evidence and Future Perspective

INTRODUCTION

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are anti-inflammatory medications suppressing Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway by inhibiting various cytokines receptors on the membrane of cells. Mutations and polymorphisms on JAK and STAT proteins can cause dysregulation in the balance of immune system, and ultimately result in autoimmune disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To record and summarize the overall efficacy and safety of JAKi in various autoimmune conditions such as alopecia areata (AA), psoriasis vulgaris (PV), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), atopic dermatitis (AD), vitiligo, hidradenitis suppurative (HS), lichen planus (LP), and pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

METHODS

A thorough review of articles was performed across PubMed and Google Scholar on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical trials and case studies evaluating the treatment of autoimmune disorders such as AA, PV, PsA, AD, vitiligo, LP, HS, and PG with JAKi. Duplicated data and animal experiments or in vitro/ex vivo studies were excluded.

RESULTS

All the reviewed articles reported beneficial effects of tofacitinib and ruxolitinib application in the treatment of disorders mentioned above with the autoimmune predisposition.

CONCLUSIONS

Tofacitinib and ruxolitinib showed potential efficacy in treating several autoimmune disorders. Based on records in the reviewed studies, both medications had acceptable safety profiles; however, physicians are recommended to outweigh the risks and benefits of such treatments for each specific condition.

Translational impact of omics studies in alopecia areata: recent advances and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Alopecia areata (AA) is a non-scarring, hair loss disorder and a common autoimmune-mediated disease with an estimated lifetime risk of about 2%. To date, the treatment of AA is mainly based on suppression or stimulation of the immune response. Genomics and transcriptomics studies generated important insights into the underlying pathophysiology, enabled discovery of molecular disease signatures, which were used in some of the recent clinical trials to monitor drug response and substantiated the consideration of new therapeutic modalities for the treatment of AA such as abatacept, dupilumab, ustekinumab and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, genomics and transcriptomics studies in AA are discussed in detail with particular emphasis on their past and prospective translational impacts. Microbiome studies are also briefly introduced.

EXPERT OPINION

The generation of large datasets using the new high-throughput technologies has revolutionized medical research and AA has also benefited from the wave of omics studies. However, the limitations associated with JAK inhibitors and clinical heterogeneity in AA patients underscore the necessity for continuing omics research in AA for discovery of novel therapeutic modalities and development of clinical tools for precision medicine.

Tofacitinib for Treatment of Alopecia Areata: Real-world Evidence and Factors Associated with Therapeutic Response

Abstract is missing (Short communication)

Economic Impact of Home-Use versus Office-Use Diphenylcyclopropenone in Extensive Alopecia Areata

Introduction

Diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP) is the medication of choice for the treatment of severe alopecia areata (AA) according to AA treatment guidelines. Precise initiation and application are important factors for successful treatment. However, it is difficult for patients who live far away to visit their doctor weekly.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the cost, effectiveness, and side effects of DPCP treatment between office-use DPCP (O-DPCP) and home-use DPCP (H-DPCP) in severe AA patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of healthcare providers and patients using real-world data and the national cost statistics for hospital services comparing O-DPCP and H-DPCP in patients with severe AA at 24, 36, and 48 weeks.

Results

Two groups of 41 patients treated with O-DPCP and H-DPCP were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who showed a favorable outcome (≥50% improvement) with minimal side effects between both groups at 24 (O-DPCP 43.9% vs. H-DPCP 26.8%, p = 0.11), 36 (O-DPCP 58.5% vs. H-DPCP 43.9%, p = 0.19), or 48 weeks (O-DPCP 63.4% vs. H-DPCP 56.1%, p = 0.49). The cost of H-DPCP was half of the cost of O-DPCP.

Discussion/Conclusion

H-DPCP is a cost-effective and time-efficient alternative treatment option for severe AA patients.