Efetividade da associação de recursos terapêuticos estéticos comparados ao uso de medicamentos para o tratamento de alopecia androgenética padrão masculino: revisão sistemática e metanálise

Abstract

Introduction: Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a common form of hair loss that affects approximately 30% of men aged 30 years and 50% of those aged 50 years or older. Objective: To gather information about the benefits and effectiveness of hair therapy treatment using essential oils, electrotherapy and other aesthetic resources associated with drug treatment, compared to treatment with conventional drugs. Method: Prospective registration was performed using the PROSPERO database and conducted in accordance with the PRISMA recommendation guidelines. In the database search, Medline via Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus were considered, and among the inclusion criteria are men affected by androgenetic alopecia. The risks of bias of the included studies were analyzed using the Rob2 and Robins tools and for the quality of the evidence, GRADE was used. Results: four studies were included, three randomized clinical trials and one non-randomized one. For the risk of bias, two are at low risk of bias, while the other two studies show high and moderate risk. The extraction of data for this systematic review allowed the construction of three tables which demonstrate the synthesis of the results analyzed by the articles selected according to the inclusion criteria. Among the aesthetic resources selected, photobiomodulation and hair tonic with natural actives were found. In the comparisons of secondary outcomes, 2 studies with 53 participants were meta-analyzed at high risk of bias and low quality of evidence, and no significant differences were found between groups, 5.70 CI95% [-4.37 -15.76], for density capillary and 8.4 CI95% [-1.24, 17.93] in capillary diameter. Conclusion: The association of aesthetic resources does not seem to promote additional benefits for the primary and secondary outcomes analyzed in this review. The evidence has a strong risk of bias and low quality of evidence.