4.5 Article

Intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide: An undervalued option for refractory alopecia areata

Journal

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 173-179

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1346-8138.13533

Keywords

adverse effects; alopecia areata; intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide; relapse; steroids

Categories

Funding

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea [HI14C2357]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Severe alopecia areata (AA) can have an unpredictable clinical course and become refractory to contact immunotherapy. Novel treatment options include low-dose interleukin-2 and Janus kinase inhibitors; however, these treatments are still under investigation. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of intramuscular (i.m.) triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) as a rescue therapy for refractory AA. We retrospectively analysed efficacy, adverse effects and relapse rate of i.m. TAC monthly in 27 patients with refractory AA. We defined AA as refractory if the patient showed an unsatisfactory response to both systemic treatment (not i.m. TAC) and the consecutive diphenylcyclopropenone immunotherapy. The initial systemic treatment of other forms of corticosteroids and/or cyclosporin was used to control extensive AA involving more than 25% of the scalp. Administration of i.m. TAC for 3-6 months resulted in a 63.0% response rate, and all patients showed inactive disease after treatment. Final hair regrowth negatively correlated with initial scalp involvement (Spearman r = -0.595, P = 0.001). All patients showed complete recovery of adrenocortical reserve within 3 months after the last injection. Adverse effects of systemic steroid therapy were observed only in female patients (dysmenorrhea and osteoporosis). i.m. TAC may provide a valuable therapeutic option to manage active hair loss and facilitate hair regrowth in refractory AA, especially in male patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available