4.6 Review

A hair-raising history of alopecia areata

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 208-222

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/exd.14073

Keywords

alopecia areata; history; pathogenesis; treatment

Categories

Funding

  1. Alopecia UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A 3500-year-old papyrus from ancient Egypt provides a list of treatments for many diseases including bite hair loss, most likely alopecia areata (AA). The treatment of AA remained largely unchanged for over 1500 years. In 30 CE, Celsus described AA presenting as scalp alopecia in spots or the windings of a snake and suggested treatment with caustic compounds and scarification. The first modern description of AA came in 1813, though treatment still largely employed caustic agents. From the mid-19th century onwards, various hypotheses of AA development were put forward including infectious microbes (1843), nerve defects (1858), physical trauma and psychological stress (1881), focal inflammation (1891), diseased teeth (1902), toxins (1912) and endocrine disorders (1913). The 1950s brought new treatment developments with the first use of corticosteroid compounds (1952), and the first suggestion that AA was an autoimmune disease (1958). Research progressively shifted towards identifying hair follicle-specific autoantibodies (1995). The potential role of lymphocytes in AA was made implicit with immunohistological studies (1980s). However, studies confirming their functional role were not published until the development of rodent models (1990s). Genetic studies, particularly genome-wide association studies, have now come to the forefront and open up a new era of AA investigation (2000s). Today, AA research is actively focused on genetics, the microbiome, dietary modulators, the role of atopy, immune cell types in AA pathogenesis, primary antigenic targets, mechanisms by which immune cells influence hair growth, and of course the development of new treatments based on these discoveries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available