We aimed to determine the efficacy of the various available oral, topical, and procedural treatment options for hair loss in individuals with androgenic alopecia. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the National Library of Medicine was performed. Overall, 141 unique studies met our inclusion criteria. We demonstrate that many over the counter (e.g. topical minoxidil, supplements, low-level light treatment), prescription (e.g. oral minoxidil, finasteride, dutasteride), and procedural (e.g. platelet-rich plasma, fractionated lasers, hair transplantation) treatments successfully promote hair growth, highlighting the superiority of a multifaceted and individualized approach to management.

Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches.
Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid.
Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

UNASSIGNED: Prostaglandin analogs have been found to have more versatile uses: treatment of open-angle glaucoma, high intraocular pressure, vitiligo, and other treatments. And prostaglandin analogs have been found to have an important role in the hair growth cycle. However, prostaglandin analogs have not been sufficiently studied for hair (including hair, eyelashes, and eyebrows) regeneration. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of topical prostaglandin analogs on hair loss was performed.
UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the efficacy and safety of topical prostaglandin analogs for treating hair loss.
UNASSIGNED: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases comprehensively. Data were pooled using Review Manager 5.4.1, and subgroup analyses were performed if necessary.
UNASSIGNED: There were six randomized controlled trials included in this meta-analysis. All studies compared prostaglandin analogs with placebo, and one trial consisted of two sets of data. The results showed that prostaglandin analogs could significantly improve the hair length and density (p < 0.001). As far as adverse events are concerned, there was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group.
UNASSIGNED: In patients with hair loss, the topical prostaglandin analogs have better therapeutic efficacy and safety than placebo. However, the best dose and frequency of experimental treatment require further studies.

UNASSIGNED: The global prevalence of allergic diseases has led to a negative and extensive impact on the health and lives of a large population of children. This study investigates the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of cetirizine (CTZ) for treating allergic diseases in children and provides evidence-based assertions for decision-making.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched from inception to April 21, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of children with allergic diseases receiving CTZ compared with those receiving placebo or other drugs were included without language limitations. Two investigators independently identified articles, extracted data, conducted meta-analyses, assessed the Cochrane risk of bias of individual studies, and evaluated the evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach; any discrepancies were resolved by consulting with a third investigator. Primary outcomes included scales that evaluated the recovery of allergic conditions in AR, such as the total symptom score (TSS). Secondary outcomes included laboratory test changes, safety (adverse events, AEs), and quality of life (QOL). Data were pooled using the Cochrane Review Manager 5.4, and a fixed-effects model was used if heterogeneity was evaluated as low (I 2 < 50%); otherwise, a random-effects model was adopted.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 22 studies (5,867 patients) were ultimately included [eight with perennial AR, six with seasonal AR, four with atopic dermatitis (AD), and four with other allergic diseases], most of which had a low or unclear risk of bias. Moderate certainty evidence showed that CTZ was found to benefit allergic symptom control [mean difference (MD) of TSS at 1 week: MD, -0.32 (-0.52, -0.12); at 2 weeks: MD, -0.25 (-0.35, -0.14); at 4 weeks: MD, -4.07 (-4.71, -3.43); at 8 weeks: MD, -4.22 (-4.73, -3.72); at 12 weeks: MD, -5.63 (-6.14, -5.13); all P-values were less than 0.05] and QOL [at 12 weeks: MD, -23.16 (-26.92, -19.39); P < 0.00001] in children with AR. It had similar efficacy compared with other antihistamines (AHs) or montelukast, without showing better control of AD severity in children. Moderate-to-low certainty evidence demonstrated that CTZ was well tolerated and did not increase the risk of severe and overall AEs, cardiotoxicity, damage to the central nervous and digestive systems, or other systems in children, except for the risk of somnolence [risk ratio, 1.62 (1.02, 2.57); P = 0.04, compared with placebo].
UNASSIGNED: Moderate-to-low certainty evidence revealed that CTZ could improve clinical improvement and QOL in children with AR and have comparable efficacy with other AHs. CTZ is well tolerated in the pediatric population, except for an increased risk of somnolence.
UNASSIGNED: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021262767].

BACKGROUND: Cetirizine, a widely used agent for allergic disorders, has recently been topically used for treating androgenetic alopecia (AGA). We aimed to summarize the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of topical cetirizine for treating AGA.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS: We initially identified 102 records, of which, we included two RCTs and one non-randomized clinical trial, which were of moderate-to-high risk of bias. All included trials used 1% topical cetirizine as the intervention with various regimens. Topical cetirizine was likely to be more effective than a placebo for treating AGA. In comparison with topical minoxidil, topical cetirizine appears to be less effective for improving total and vellus hair density, but it might have a longer-lasting effect. Further, cetirizine might be as effective as minoxidil in improving hair diameter.
CONCLUSIONS: One percent topical cetirizine may serve as a choice for treating AGA, especially for patients with a negative response to topical minoxidil. In order to fully understand the role of topical cetirizine for AGA, additional well-designed RCTs are needed.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we attempted to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for allergic rhinitis (AR), and to test the robustness of the estimated effects.
METHODS: The Cochrane methodology standard was followed to conduct this systematic review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with other therapies for AR were included. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis was conducted to test the robustness of pooled results. Thirty trials with 4413 participants were included.
RESULTS: Acupuncture improved the nasal symptoms on Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) and quality of life measured by Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) in adults with AR, compared to acupuncture with no intervention. Acupuncture was also shown to be more effective than sham acupuncture for nasal symptom (RQLQ subscale, n = 489, MD - 0.60, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.04) and quality of life (RQLQ, n = 248, - 8.47 95% CI - 14.91, - 2.03). No clear difference was observed between acupuncture and cetirizine or loratadine. Interestingly, trial sequential analysis (TSA) failed to confirm the aforementioned results. The effect of acupuncture for children/adolescents with AR remains unclear due to insufficient data. The performance bias and attrition bias are serious in most studies that were included. Selection bias may also have affected the quality of the evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture may have an advantage over no intervention and sham acupuncture in improving nasal symptoms and quality of life for adults with AR. The effect of acupuncture and cetirizine or loratadine for AR may be similar. Additional trials are necessary to confirm these results.

Since 1955, the only available H1 antihistamines for intravenous administration have been first-generation formulations and, of those, only intravenously administered (IV) diphenhydramine is still approved in the USA. Orally administered cetirizine hydrochloride, a second-generation H1 antihistamine, has been safely used over-the-counter for many years. In 2019, IV cetirizine was approved for the treatment of acute urticaria. In light of this approval, this narrative review discusses the changing landscape of IV antihistamines for the treatment of histamine-mediated conditions. Specifically, IV antihistamines will be discussed as a treatment option for acute urticaria and angioedema, as premedication to prevent infusion reactions related to anticancer agents and other biologics, and as an adjunct treatment for anaphylaxis and other allergic reactions. Before the development of IV cetirizine, randomized controlled trials of IV antihistamines for these indications were lacking. Three randomized controlled trials have been conducted with IV cetirizine versus IV diphenhydramine in the ambulatory care setting. A phase 3 trial of IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 262 adults who presented to the urgent care/emergency department with acute urticaria requiring antihistamines. For the primary efficacy endpoint, defined as change from baseline in a 2-h patient-rated pruritus score, non-inferiority of IV cetirizine to IV diphenhydramine was demonstrated (score - 1.6 vs - 1.5, respectively; 95% CI - 0.1, 0.3). Compared with IV diphenhydramine, IV cetirizine demonstrated fewer adverse effects including less sedation, a significantly shorter length of stay in the treatment center, and fewer returns to the treatment center at 24 and 48 h. Similar findings were demonstrated in another phase 2 acute urticaria trial and in a phase 2 trial assessing IV cetirizine for pretreatment for infusion reactions in the oncology/immunology setting. IV cetirizine is associated with similar patient outcomes, fewer adverse effects, and increased treatment center efficiency than IV diphenhydramine.

H1-antihistamines (AHs) are widely used for the treatment of allergic diseases, being one of the most commonly prescribed classes of medications in pediatrics. Newer-generation AHs are associated with fewer adverse effects compared with first-generation AHs. However, their relative harms in the pediatric population still need scrutiny.
We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which included comparisons of safety parameters between an orally administered newer-generation AH and another AH (first- or second-generation), montelukast, or placebo in children aged ≤12 years. We searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL, independently extracted data on study population, interventions, adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuations, and assessed the methodologic quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane\'s risk of bias tool.
Forty-five RCTs published between 1989 and 2017 met eligibility criteria. The majority of RCTs included school-aged children with allergic rhinitis and had a follow-up period of up to a month. Four RCTs reported serious AEs in patients receiving a newer-generation AH, but only two patients experienced a possibly drug-related serious AE. The occurrence of AEs, drug-related AEs, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs varied between RCTs. Most AEs reported were of mild intensity. Indirect evidence indicates that cetirizine is more sedating than the other newer-generation AHs.
Our findings confirm that newer-generation AHs have a favorable safety and tolerability profile. However, we could not draw firm conclusions regarding the comparative safety profile of the newer-generation AHs due to the paucity of head-to-head RCTs, variation in definitions and reporting of AEs, and short follow-up duration.

Darier disease (DD) is a rare type of inherited keratinizing disorder with no definitive therapeutic approach. The objective of this study is to provide a detailed literature review of all the available treatment modalities of Darier disease, including those that are both surgical and non surgical, to compare their efficacies and to propose a novel therapeutic approach. A complete search of the literature for all articles describing the different treatments of Darier disease, with no restrictions on patients\' ages, gender or nationalities, was performed with the use of PubMed. A total of 68 articles were included in the study: 3 prospective studies, 44 case reports/case series and 21 letters/correspondences/clinical images. The treatments described were topical, oral or physical. Retinoids (isotretinoin, tazarotene and adapalene) and fluorouracil were the two most effective topical treatments. Oral retinoids were the most effective oral therapy and were prescribed in the cases of generalized Darier disease. For localized and resistant skin lesions, physical therapies including surgical excision, dermabrasion and CO2 laser ablation were the first line choices. Limitations of this article include the inability to verify the accuracy of the published data, the relatively small sample size, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials and possible unidentified confounding factors in various studies. In every therapeutic approach to Darier disease, consideration of patient comorbidities, disease distribution, severity and treatment accessibility is essential. Large and randomized clinical trials are necessary for the comparison of the efficacy and the safety of all the treatments of Darier disease and settling a consensus for management.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have reported that levocetirizine is utilized for the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis (AR), its conclusions remain inconsistent. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and harms of levocetirizine for children with AR.
METHODS: Electronic database sources will be undertaken from the beginning to the present: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ACMD, PsycINFO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. We will not apply any restrictions to language and publication status. We will only consider randomized controlled trials of levocetirizine for children with AR. Two authors will independently scan literature, select studies, and collect data. Study quality for each included trial will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and statistical analysis will be conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS: This study will summarize the present evidence to systematically assess the efficacy and harms of levocetirizine for children with AR.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study intent to adequately inform stakeholders or clinicians, as well as to help develop treatment guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: INPLASY202040111.