New drug helps some bald patients regrow hair

August 19, 2014

Drug hairAug 19: The first thing Brian H noticed was that he could grow a real beard. It had been years since that had been possible, years he spent bedevilled by hair loss on his head, face, arms and legs.

Brian, 34, who asked that his last name be withheld to protect his privacy, suffers from alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease afflicting about 1 percent of men and women, causing hair to fall out, often all over the body. He believes that the "mangy patches" of baldness that have plagued him since his 20s have cost him jobs and relationships.

After trying various treatments, Brian enrolled this year in a study at Columbia University Medical Center testing whether a drug approved for a bone marrow disorder could help people with alopecia. One of the study's leaders, Dr Angela Christiano, is a dermatology professor and geneticist who herself has alopecia areata.

After successfully testing on mice, two drugs from a new class of medicines called JAK inhibitors, which suppress immune system activity by blocking certain enzymes, the researchers began testing one of the drugs, ruxolitinib, on seven women and five men. Some of their findings were published Sunday in the journal Nature Medicine.

The results for Brian and several other participants have been significant.

"Pretty quickly, there were sort of fringes," Brian said. Then "three or four large areas started to show hair growth," and by five months, he had plenty of hair on his head, arms, and even his back. "I was blown away," he said.

The disease differs from other types of hair loss, including male pattern baldness, and there is no evidence the drug will work for those conditions. Experts caution that even for alopecia areata, it is too early to know if the treatment will work for most patients and if there are significant side effects or safety concerns.

The study is continuing, but so far a few participants did not regrow hair, said Dr. Julian Mackay-Wiggan, director of Columbia's dermatology clinical research unit and an author of the study.

"It appears to work — not in everyone, but in the majority," she said. "We need a lot more data on the long-term risks in healthy individuals. But it's certainly very exciting in terms of hair growth. It was surprising how quickly and impressively the growth occurred."

Undated handout photos of hair regrowth over time on the head of a patient with alopecia areata taking a drug called ruxolitinib during during a clinical study (NYT photo)

Dr Luis Garza, a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital who was not involved in the research, said the results were encouraging enough that he would consider prescribing ruxolitinib to patients who could not be treated with other methods and who understood potential side effects.

Cortisone injections often work for patients with isolated patches of baldness, but they must be done regularly and are painful. For patients with severe baldness, "it's impossible to inject their whole scalp", he said.

"There's a major need for improving the treatment," he added. "It's not ludicrous to try on a patient."

But Dr George Cotsarelis, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, urged caution until further research is conducted. He said it makes sense that drugs suppressing immune system activity would work for a disorder caused by an overly active immune reaction.

But because patients in the study received twice-daily pills that circulated ruxolitinib throughout their bodies, rather than topical cream, he said they were "treated systemically with a very toxic drug" that can cause liver and blood problems, infections and other ailments.

Although the patients have experienced few side effects, the study is small and not a randomized trial comparing ruxolitinib to other treatments.

If ruxolitinib could be applied topically, Cotsarelis said, "This would be an amazing breakthrough." Until then, "patients are going to rush in demanding this treatment, and I would not give it".

Dr Raphael Clynes, a co-leader of the research while he was a Columbia professor (he now works for Bristol-Myers Squibb), said the team tested cream and pills on mice, and planned to test a cream on people.

So far he considered ruxolitinib "an expensive therapy that's probably effective based on the small number of patients that we've treated, and it's likely to have a reasonable safety profile. But there's no way that I can endorse it fully unless we do larger trial."

The team also plans to test on people another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, which is approved for rheumatoid arthritis and grew hair on mice. In June, Dr Brett King, a dermatologist at Yale, reported that tofacitinib caused full hair growth and no negative effects for a man with alopecia universalis, a variant involving almost total hair loss.

The idea to use JAK inhibitors grew out of a genome analysis Christiano conducted, which found that in alopecia areata, hair follicles emit a signal that draws immune cells to attack. Her team identified specific cells involved and found genetic similarities to unrelated autoimmune diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis.

Several of the 12 patients are still completing the study, taking ruxolitinib for three to six months. Christiano has not tried it because, she said, her alopecia has been dormant, although "I have an eyebrow that comes and goes."

For Brian, five months on the drug yielded a full head of hair. For unknown reasons, the new hair is white instead of black, its original colour.

Still, "It's a lot easier to shrug that off than to pass the silent judgment of people" who he felt were staring at his bald splotches, he said. He said side effects, including slight anemia, were minor.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 20,2020

Washington D.C., May 20: While a dairy-rich diet is helpful in meeting the body's calcium requirement, outcomes of a large international study links eating at least two daily servings of dairy with lower risks of diabetes and high blood pressure.

The dairy-rich diet also proved to lower the cluster of factors that heighten cardiovascular disease risk (metabolic syndrome). The study was published online in journal BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care.

The observed associations were strongest for full-fat dairy products, the findings indicated.

Previously published research has suggested that higher dairy intake is associated with a lower risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and metabolic syndrome. But these studies have tended to focus on North America and Europe to the exclusion of other regions of the world.

To see whether these associations might also be found in a broader range of countries, the researchers drew on people taking part in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.

Participants were all aged between 35 and 70 and came from 21 countries: Argentina; Bangladesh; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; India; Iran; Malaysia; Palestine; Pakistan; Philippines, Poland; South Africa; Saudi Arabia; Sweden; Tanzania; Turkey; United Arab Emirates; and Zimbabwe.

Usual dietary intake over the previous 12 months was assessed by means of Food Frequency Questionnaires. Dairy products included milk, yogurt, yogurt drinks, cheese and dishes prepared with dairy products, and were classified as full or low fat (1-2 percent).

Butter and cream were assessed separately as these are not commonly eaten in some of the countries studied.

Information on personal medical history, use of prescription medicines, educational attainment, smoking and measurements of weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure and fasting blood glucose were also collected.

Data on all five components of the metabolic syndrome were available for nearly 113,000 people: blood pressure above 130/85 mm Hg; waist circumference above 80 cm; low levels of (beneficial) high-density cholesterol (less than 1-1.3 mmol/l); blood fats (triglycerides) of more than 1.7 mmol/dl; and fasting blood glucose of 5.5 mmol/l or more.

Average daily total dairy consumption was 179 g, with full-fat accounting for around double the amount of low fat: 124.5+ vs 65 g.

Some 46, 667 people had metabolic syndrome--defined as having at least 3 of the 5 components.

Total dairy and full-fat dairy, but not low-fat dairy, was associated with a lower prevalence of most components of metabolic syndrome, with the size of the association greatest in those countries with normally low dairy intakes.

At least 2 servings a day of total dairy were associated with a 24 percent lower risk of metabolic syndrome, rising to 28 percent for full-fat dairy alone, compared with no daily dairy intake.

The health of nearly 190,000 participants was tracked for an average of nine years, during which time 13,640 people developed high blood pressure and 5351 developed diabetes.

At least 2 servings a day of total dairy was associated with a 11-12 percent lower risk of both conditions, rising to a 13-14 percent lower risk for 3 daily servings. The associations were stronger for full fat than they were for low-fat dairy.

This is an observational study, and as such can't establish the cause. Food frequency questionnaires are also subject to recall, and changes in metabolic syndrome weren't measured over time, all of which may have influenced the findings.

Nevertheless, the researchers suggest: "If our findings are confirmed in sufficiently large and long term trials, then increasing dairy consumption may represent a feasible and low-cost approach to reducing [metabolic syndrome], hypertension, diabetes, and ultimately cardiovascular disease events worldwide."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 20,2020

The World Health Organisation has warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is entering a "new and dangerous" phase. Thursday saw the most cases in a single day reported to the WHO.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the day had seen 150,000 new cases with half of those coming from the Americas and large numbers also from the Middle East and South Asia, the BBC reported.

He said the virus was still spreading fast and the pandemic accelerating.

He acknowledged people might be fed up with self-isolating and countries were eager to open their economies but he said that now was a time for extreme vigilance.

Maria van Kerkhove, technical lead of the WHO's COVID-19 response, told a press conference the pandemic is "accelerating in many parts of the world".

"While we have seen countries have some success in suppressing transmission and bringing transition down to a low level, every country must remain ready," she said.

Mike Ryan, the head of the WHO's Health Emergencies Programme, said that some countries had managed to flatten the peak of infections without bringing them down to a very low level.

"You can see a situation in some countries where they could get a second peak now, because the disease has not been brought under control," he said.

"The disease will then go away and reduce to a low level, and they could then get a second wave again in the autumn or later in the year."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 15,2020

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.