A Case of Topical Ruxolitinib Treatment Failure in Alopecia Areata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune-mediated, nonscarring form of hair loss. Despite its prevalence, current management options are limited, especially when the disease has progressed to alopecia totalis (AT) or alopecia universalis (AU). Recent evidence that janus kinase (JAK) signaling contributes to AA pathogenesis prompted the investigation of JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib and ruxolitinib as possible oral treatments. However, the potential for significant adverse effects with systemic JAK inhibition makes local administration a more attractive option. Yet, a paucity of data exists on topical JAK inhibition in AA. A success of topical ruxolitinib (0.6% cream) use in a young patient with AU has been reported to date. Here we report the treatment of a 66-year-old with AA with the same formulation of topical ruxolitinib, where it failed to induce hair growth. Our report demonstrates the importance of examining the factors contributing to variation in treatment response in a clinical trial of topical JAK inhibitors in AA. It is likely that both intrinsic factors specific to individual patients and extrinsic factors relating to treatment regimen are involved. Furthermore, characterisation of the specific JAKs overexpressed in AA may better target medication. Finally, this report highlights the need to compare the outcomes of topical vs oral ruxolitinib administration in patients with severe AA, AT, and AU and may support the possibility that extensive disease is more adequately treated with oral administration of ruxolitinib.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".