P100: Efficacy of current treatments under study in patients with alopecia areata
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Markqayne Ray,1 Maureen Neary,1 Bach-Khoa Vu,2 Harriet Tuson,3 Noor-E Zannat,2 Ernest Law,1 Karolina Wosik,4 Debanjali Mitra5 and Sharada Harricharan2 1Pfizer Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA; 2Cytel Inc., Waltham, MA, USA; 3Pfizer Ltd, Walton Oaks, UK; 4Pfizer Canada Inc., Kirkland, Canada; and 5Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring, chronic inflammatory disease characterized by hair loss ranging from small, well-defined patches to complete loss of scalp, facial and body hair. There are no approved treatments for AA across most major countries worldwide, while there is considerable patient burden and unmet need for effective therapies. This large systematic review study aimed to identify treatments currently being evaluated within clinical trials for AA and to summarize efficacy outcomes. Using PRISMA guidelines, clinical studies reporting efficacy in AA from January 2010 to October 2021 were identified in searches of Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane. Publications from dermatology congresses (2019–2021) and ClinicalTrials.gov were also identified. Study design, population characteristics and efficacy outcomes were summarized descriptively. A total of 136 publications for 129 clinical studies (n = 7618) were selected for inclusion. Of these studies, 73 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 17 were nonrandomized trials and 39 were single-arm trials. Thirty-two studies evaluated exclusively adult cohorts (≥ 18 years) and three evaluated paediatrics (≤ 17 years, 2–18 years and < 16 years, respectively). No studies reported results by defined paediatric-age subsets, such as adolescents. Across 73 RCTs, 6120 patients were included (3–281 per arm), aged 6.4–52.5 years. The most frequently evaluated interventions (monotherapy/combinations) included corticosteroids (45%), Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (14%), phototherapy (13%), platelet-rich plasma (PRP; 12%) and diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP; 8%). Commonly reported efficacy outcomes included the proportion of patients with hair growth (n = 81/129) and Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score (n = 58/129). Mean relative percentage change from baseline in SALT score at 24 weeks was reported in 11 RCTs for patients receiving selected treatments, as follows: 7–52% for corticosteroids (n = 3), 31–64% for JAK inhibitors (ritlecitinib, brepocitinib, tofacitinib, baricitinib; n = 4), 1–9% for PRP (n = 3) and 35% for DPCP (n = 1). Sixteen studies evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using disease-specific and generic scales. Treatment satisfaction was the most frequently reported PRO across studies (n = 7/16), with most patients in these seven studies reporting moderate or better satisfaction. PRO measures for quality of life were much less frequently included, despite patient burden. While there is currently a lack of approved treatments in AA, numerous therapies have been studied. For treatments under study, promising efficacy results have been observed for JAK inhibitors. Few studies have evaluated treatments in adolescent patients, thereby indicating a need for future efficacy studies in this population. Additional studies that further evaluate patient-relevant endpoints will also be important to support holistic management of this condition.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».