Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Efficacy of non-surgical treatments for androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Gupta, A. K., Mays, R. R., Dotzert, M. S., Versteeg, S. G., Shear, N. H. and Piguet, Vincent 2018. Efficacy of non-surgical treatments for androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 32 (12) , pp. 2112-2125. 10.1111/jdv.15081

[img]
Preview
PDF - Accepted Post-Print Version
Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Androgenetic alopecia, or male/female pattern baldness, is the most common type of progressive hair loss disorder. The aim of this study was to review recent advances in non‐surgical treatments for androgenetic alopecia and identify the most effective treatments. A network meta‐analysis (NMA) was conducted of the available literature of the six most common non‐surgical treatment options for treating androgenetic alopecia in both men and women; dutasteride 0.5 mg, finasteride 1 mg, low‐level laser therapy (LLLT), minoxidil 2%, minoxidil 5% and platelet‐rich plasma (PRP). Seventy‐eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 22 studies had the data necessary for a network meta‐analysis. Relative effects show LLLT as the superior treatment. Relative effects show PRP, finasteride 1 mg (male), finasteride 1 mg (female), minoxidil 5%, minoxidil 2% and dutasteride (male) are approximately equivalent in mean change hair count following treatment. Minoxidil 5% and minoxidil 2% reported the most drug‐related adverse events (n = 45 and n = 23, respectively). The quality of evidence of minoxidil 2% vs. minoxidil 5% was high; minoxidil 5% vs. placebo was moderate; dutasteride (male) vs. placebo, finasteride (female) vs. placebo, minoxidil 2% vs. placebo and minoxidil 5% vs. LLLT was low; and finasteride (male) vs. placebo, LLLT vs. sham, PRP vs. placebo and finasteride vs. minoxidil 2% was very low. Results of this NMA indicate the emergence of novel, non‐hormonal therapies as effective treatments for hair loss; however, the quality of evidence is generally low. High‐quality randomized controlled trials and head‐to‐head trials are required to support these findings and aid in the development of more standardized protocols, particularly for PRP. Regardless, this analysis may aid physicians in clinical decision‐making and highlight the variety of non‐surgical hair restoration options for patients.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Medicine
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
ISSN: 0926-9959
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 7 September 2018
Date of Acceptance: 13 April 2018
Last Modified: 29 Jun 2019 13:30
URI: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/114746

Citation Data

Cited 3 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics