Reported trial results for Alopecia Areata

20 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT04006457 · results posted 14 August 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04006457) looked at a medicine called ritlecitinib over a long-term period. The main part of the study involved two groups of participants: 449 people who were new to the medicine (the "de novo" group) and 603 people who had already been taking it in an earlier study (the "roll-over" group). A smaller, separate part of the trial involved 17 participants and looked at how the body responds to certain vaccines — specifically a whooping cough/tetanus/diphtheria (Tdap) vaccine and a meningococcal vaccine — while taking ritlecitinib. The trial's primary focus was on monitoring and recording any medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during treatment, as well as tracking measurements like blood pressure, pulse, and laboratory test results. The reported data shows that in the main study, 401 out of 447 treated participants in the de novo group and 515 out of 603 in the roll-over group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (that is, any medical occurrence that happened after starting the study medicine). Serious adverse events were reported in 30 de novo participants and 42 roll-over participants; adverse events that led to a participant stopping the medicine were reported for 36 and 46 participants in those groups respectively. Abnormal laboratory test results meeting specified thresholds were recorded for 390 de novo participants and 490 roll-over participants. Abnormal vital sign readings (such as unusually low blood pressure or pulse) were also recorded across both groups, with the reported data showing numbers varying by category. For the vaccine sub-study, the reported data shows that 62.5% of participants who received the Tdap vaccine showed a booster response to the tetanus component, as defined by the study's criteria. The secondary outcome data for adverse events until end of study was not reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05589610 · results posted 10 April 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a treatment called EQ101 in people with moderate to severe alopecia (significant hair loss). A total of 36 people started the trial, 30 people completed it, and 6 did not finish. The trial was measuring how many participants experienced side effects or unwanted health events that arose during treatment (called "treatment emergent adverse events"), as well as several other things including changes in hair loss scores, how the body processed the drug, and how the drug interacted with its biological target in the body. The reported data shows that out of 36 participants, 27 experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event (an unwanted health occurrence that appeared during the treatment period). This was the primary — or main — thing the trial was tracking. For the remaining outcome measures — including changes in hair loss scores, how the body absorbed and processed EQ101, and the drug's interaction with its biological target — the data was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, so no numbers are available for those results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05556265 · results posted 28 February 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05556265) looked at a medicine called deucravacitinib in people with alopecia areata — a condition where the immune system attacks hair follicles, causing hair loss. A total of 94 participants took part in the first 24-week phase: 32 received deucravacitinib once a day (called QD), 31 received it twice a day (called BID), and 31 received a placebo (an inactive treatment). The trial's main measurement for hair loss used a tool called the SALT score, which runs from 0 to 100 — where a lower number means less hair loss on the scalp. The trial also tracked the number of participants who experienced medical events (called adverse events) during the study, as well as blood test results and heart trace (ECG) readings. The reported data shows that, after 24 weeks, the average SALT score change from the starting point was −5.8 points in the once-daily deucravacitinib group, +1.0 points in the twice-daily group, and −7.3 points in the placebo group. (A negative number means the score went down, i.e. less hair loss on the scale, compared to where each group started.) Regarding medical events during the first 24 weeks, the reported data shows that 25 out of 32 participants in the once-daily group, 28 out of 31 in the twice-daily group, and 20 out of 31 in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in 1 participant in each of the two deucravacitinib groups and none in the placebo group. The reported data shows no participants in any group reached the most severe grades (Grade 3 or 4) for abnormal blood test results across either study period. A small number of notable heart trace readings were recorded — 2 participants in the twice-daily group and 1 in the placebo group during the first period — but further detail on what these represented was not reported in the data provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05332366 · results posted 7 February 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05332366) involved 35 participants in total. They were split into three groups: 15 people received delgocitinib (the medicine being studied), 15 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient), and 5 received no treatment at all. All 35 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring changes in the levels of three immune-system chemical messengers — CXCL9, CXCL10, and IFN-γ — in the skin over 12 weeks. These proteins play a role in how the immune system sends signals. The reported data shows that, from the start of the study to week 12, the levels of all three chemical messengers changed in both the delgocitinib and placebo groups. For CXCL9, the delgocitinib group showed a reported fold-change (a measure of how much a level rose or fell relative to the starting point) of −3.10, compared with −1.12 in the placebo group. For CXCL10, the figures were −2.60 (delgocitinib) versus −1.10 (placebo). For IFN-γ, the reported fold-changes were −1.49 (delgocitinib) and −1.097 (placebo). A negative number indicates the levels were lower at week 12 than at the start. No figures were reported for the no-treatment group for this outcome. The reported data also shows that, over the 12-week period, there were 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (that is, unwanted medical occurrences that appeared after treatment began) in the delgocitinib group, and 9 in the placebo group. No figure was reported for the no-treatment group for this outcome. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04019795 · results posted 5 September 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 160 people in total across four groups. Three groups used different settings of an active light-emitting cap device called REVIAN, while a fourth group used a non-active (sham) version of the cap that did not emit the treatment light — this sham group is sometimes called a "control" group, meaning it was used as a comparison point. The trial was measuring changes in the number of terminal hairs (the thicker, more visible hairs on the scalp) over 16 weeks, using standardised photographs reviewed by independent observers who did not know which group each participant was in. The reported data shows the average change in hair count from the start of the trial to the 16-week mark. In the non-active (sham) cap group, the average hair count went down by about 15.5 hairs. In the three active cap groups, the average hair counts went up: by approximately 14.3 hairs in one active group, by approximately 18.9 hairs in a second active group, and by approximately 5.2 hairs in the third active group. No secondary outcome measure data appears to have been reported in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04556734 · results posted 26 June 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medicine called etrasimod in people with alopecia areata, a condition that causes patchy hair loss on the scalp. The main thing the trial was measuring was the change in scalp hair loss over 24 weeks, using a tool called SALT I — a scoring system where 0 means no scalp hair loss and 100 means complete scalp hair loss. A total of 80 participants took part in the first, double-blind phase of the trial (where neither participants nor researchers knew who was getting which treatment): 31 received etrasimod 2 mg, 25 received etrasimod 3 mg, and 24 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). After this 24-week phase, a smaller group of 65 participants continued into an optional follow-on period of a further 28 weeks, where everyone received etrasimod. The reported data shows that, at the end of the 24-week double-blind phase, the percentage change in SALT I scores from the start of the trial was a reduction of about 13.8% in the etrasimod 2 mg group and about 21.4% in the etrasimod 3 mg group, compared with a very small increase of about 0.35% in the placebo group — meaning lower scores indicate less scalp hair loss over time. In plain terms, the reported numbers suggest the SALT I scores went down (indicating less hair loss on the scalp) in both etrasimod groups and stayed roughly the same in the placebo group. Looking at a separate measure, the proportion of participants who showed at least a 30% improvement in their SALT I score by week 24 was reported as approximately 23.5% in the 2 mg group, 36% in the 3 mg group, and 12.5% in the placebo group. For a more meaningful threshold of at least 50% improvement, the reported figures were approximately 11.8%, 28%, and 12.5% respectively. The number of participants who experienced adverse events (any unexpected medical occurrences during the trial) was also recorded — 21 in the 2 mg group, 20 in the 3 mg group, and 18 in the placebo group during the double-blind phase — though no further detail about the nature of these events is provided in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03899259 · results posted 14 May 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03899259) enrolled 606 participants across three groups in its first phase: 173 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient), 174 received a 2 mg daily dose of baricitinib, and 259 received a 4 mg daily dose of baricitinib. The trial was measuring changes in hair loss in people with alopecia areata — a condition where the immune system attacks hair follicles. The main thing being measured was a scalp hair loss score called SALT, where a lower score means less hair loss, and the goal was to see how many participants reached a SALT score of 20 or below (meaning 20% or less of the scalp affected by hair loss) by week 36. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure at week 36, 2.6% of participants in the placebo group reached a SALT score of 20 or below, compared with 17.3% in the 2 mg baricitinib group and 32.5% in the 4 mg baricitinib group. For secondary measures, the reported average percentage change in SALT score from the start of the trial was approximately −3% for the placebo group, −28% for the 2 mg group, and −47% for the 4 mg group (a negative number here means a reduction in hair loss score). The reported data also shows that 2.6% of the placebo group, 10.9% of the 2 mg group, and 23.5% of the 4 mg group achieved at least a 50% improvement in their SALT score. For eyebrow hair loss (assessed by a clinician), 4.5% of the placebo group, 11.5% of the 2 mg group, and 34.8% of the 4 mg group showed meaningful improvement. The time-to-response data for the SALT score was not reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04517864 · results posted 28 December 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04517864) looked at a medicine called ritlecitinib compared to a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) in a total of 71 participants across the main placebo-controlled phase — 36 received ritlecitinib and 35 received placebo. The trial was measuring changes in a hearing brain-wave test called a Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential (BAEP), which records how quickly sound signals travel from the ear through the brainstem. Specifically, it tracked a timing measurement called the I–V interwave latency — essentially, how long (in thousandths of a second, or milliseconds) it takes for a sound signal to travel between two points in the brainstem. A later extension phase involved up to 45 additional participants receiving ritlecitinib only, though the reported data shows none of that group completed the extension phase. The reported data shows the following numbers for the primary measurement at 9 months. For the right ear, the ritlecitinib group had an average change from their starting value of +0.011 milliseconds, while the placebo group had a change of −0.010 milliseconds. For the left ear, the ritlecitinib group had a change of +0.031 milliseconds and the placebo group +0.022 milliseconds. These are very small differences in both directions. For the secondary measurements at 6 months, the right-ear change was −0.030 ms for ritlecitinib and −0.024 ms for placebo; the left-ear change was +0.021 ms for ritlecitinib and −0.020 ms for placebo. In the longer extension phase at the 9E and 15E time points, changes ranged from approximately −0.033 ms to +0.056 ms across the two groups and both ears. No information about whether these differences were considered statistically meaningful (i.e., unlikely to be due to chance) was included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03732807 · results posted 24 February 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03732807) enrolled 718 adults across seven treatment groups to study a medicine called ritlecitinib (also known as PF-06651600) for alopecia areata — a condition that causes patchy or complete hair loss on the scalp. Participants were assigned to receive different doses of ritlecitinib (some starting on a higher "loading" dose before dropping to a lower maintenance dose), or a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial ran in two stages: up to 24 weeks, then a further extension to 48 weeks. The main thing being measured was a hair loss score called the SALT score, which runs from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete scalp hair loss) — a lower score indicates less hair loss. The reported data shows that at week 24, the percentage of participants whose SALT score fell to 20 or below (meaning relatively mild hair loss) was around 30.6% in the group that started on 200 mg then moved to 50 mg, compared with about 1.5% in the placebo group. Other ritlecitinib dose groups sat between these figures: approximately 22.3% (200 mg then 30 mg), 23.4% (50 mg), 14.3% (30 mg), and 1.7% (10 mg). For the stricter measure of a SALT score of 10 or below, the reported figures ranged from roughly 21% in the highest-dose group down to about 1.5% in the placebo group. Separately, when participants rated their own impression of change, around 52% in the highest-dose group reported feeling "moderately" or "greatly improved" at week 24, compared with about 9% in the placebo group. The reported data also includes a mathematical modelling analysis of how the dose of ritlecitinib related to the SALT score results, which produced broadly similar percentage figures to those described above. It is important to note that these numbers describe what was observed and recorded in the trial — they do not on their own tell us whether any particular dose is suitable or unsuitable for any individual person. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02494297 · results posted 27 August 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,597 participants, all of whom were in a single group receiving a combination medication containing cyproterone acetate and ethinyl estradiol. All 1,597 participants who started the study also completed it, with none recorded as dropping out. The trial was designed to look at how doctors were actually prescribing this medication in practice — that is, which conditions they were prescribing it for and how it was being used in the real world. The reported data shows that the primary outcome measured was the "drug utilisation pattern," meaning researchers collected information from prescribing doctors about why patients were being given the medication, broken down by current disease or condition status. The numbers reported across the different categories were 594 participants, 128 participants, 106 participants, and 769 participants. However, the labels identifying what each of these four categories specifically represents were not included in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so it is not possible to describe exactly what each number refers to beyond noting they reflect different groups based on current disease status. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03467412 · results posted 3 December 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a treatment called FOL-005 for hair growth on the scalp. A total of 120 people took part across five groups: four groups received different doses of FOL-005 (0.00625 µg, 0.025 µg, 0.050 µg, and 0.100 µg — µg meaning micrograms, a very small unit of measurement), and one group of 20 people received a placebo (an inactive treatment used for comparison). The trial ran for 12 weeks, and the main thing being measured was the change in the total number of hairs per square centimetre of scalp from the start of the trial to the end. The reported data shows the following changes in total hair density (hairs per cm²) from the starting point: the lowest-dose FOL-005 group increased by 1.46, the second-dose group increased by 2.58, the third-dose group decreased by 4.10, and the highest-dose group increased by 6.68. The placebo group increased by 5.60. For the secondary measures — which looked at hairs in the active growing phase (anagen hairs) and the resting/shedding phase (telogen hairs) — the reported data shows mixed changes across all groups, with the highest FOL-005 dose group showing an increase of 3.18 percentage points in growing-phase hairs and an increase of 5.79 growing-phase hairs per cm², while the placebo group showed a decrease of 3.08 percentage points in growing-phase hairs and a decrease of 2.31 hairs per cm². It is worth noting that results varied across the different doses, and not all participants who started the trial completed it. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02974868 · results posted 26 May 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at two investigational medicines — PF-06651600 and PF-06700841 — compared to a placebo (an inactive treatment) in people with alopecia areata, a condition that causes patchy or complete hair loss on the scalp. A total of 142 people took part in the first 24-week treatment stage: 48 received PF-06651600, 47 received PF-06700841, 24 received a placebo matched to PF-06651600, and 23 received a placebo matched to PF-06700841. The trial then continued into two further stages — a single-blind extension and a cross-over extension — where smaller numbers of participants continued. The main thing being measured was change in scalp hair loss using a standard scoring tool called SALT, where a score of 0 means no hair loss and 100 means complete scalp hair loss, and a higher positive change from the starting score means more hair had grown back. The reported data shows that after 24 weeks, the placebo group had an average improvement of about 1.4 points on the SALT scale from their starting score. By comparison, the PF-06651600 group had an average improvement of about 32.5 points, and the PF-06700841 group had an average improvement of about 50.6 points. In a smaller sub-group of people who had total scalp hair loss or total body hair loss at the start, the reported data shows similar patterns: the placebo group averaged roughly 1.8 points of improvement, PF-06651600 around 27.6 points, and PF-06700841 around 48.4 points. The trial also tracked unintended medical events (called adverse events) and unusual laboratory test results across all stages. The reported data shows that during the extension stages, varying numbers of participants across the different treatment groups experienced adverse events or laboratory abnormalities — for example, during the single-blind extension, the numbers reporting adverse events ranged from 3 to 12 participants depending on which group they were in. The data was not reported in a way that allows straightforward comparison of all groups side by side for these measures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03488108 · results posted 8 April 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 20 participants who were split into two groups of 10. It was a "crossover" trial, meaning everyone tried both treatments — platelet rich plasma (PRP, a substance made from a person's own blood) and minoxidil foam (a topical scalp treatment) — one after the other, with a two-month break in between. The trial was measuring changes in hair over 12 weeks for each treatment, looking at things like total hair count, the number of fine (vellus) hairs, the number of thicker (terminal) hairs, and the overall thickness of hairs across a small area of scalp. By the end, 18 or 19 participants completed each stage of the trial. The reported data shows the following percentage changes after each 12-week treatment period. For total hair count, the PRP group showed a reported change of +7.7% while the minoxidil group showed +22.7%. For fine (vellus) hair density, PRP showed +25.7% and minoxidil showed +18.6%. For thicker (terminal) hair density, PRP showed -0.7% (a slight decrease) and minoxidil showed +12.8%. For cumulative hair thickness — a combined measure of how thick all the hairs were together — PRP showed -3.5% (a slight decrease) and minoxidil showed +20.6%. These figures represent averages across the group; individual results within the trial would have varied. The reported data also tracked two potential side effects: scalp swelling and scalp redness. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, zero participants in either treatment group reported experiencing either of these during the trial period. No other side effect data appears to have been reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03753113 · results posted 16 March 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03753113) involved 24 people in total — 12 in a treatment group and 12 in a control group. All 24 participants completed the study, with no dropouts recorded. The trial was measuring changes in hair diameter (thickness) over time, along with how satisfied participants felt about their hair growth, and how many participants experienced unwanted side effects such as itching, redness, or inflammation. The reported data shows that hair diameter, measured in micrometres (millionths of a metre), was recorded at what appear to be three separate time points. For the treatment group, the reported hair diameter figures were 57.42, 60.92, and 62.67 micrometres across those time points. For the control group, the corresponding figures were 51.58, 51.17, and 50.58 micrometres. On the self-assessment questionnaire — where 1 means "very satisfied" and 5 means "very dissatisfied" — the treatment group returned an average score of 1.25, while the control group returned an average score of 2.58. Regarding unwanted events, the reported data shows that 1 participant in the treatment group and 4 in the control group experienced some form of adverse event; the specific breakdown across the three reported categories showed 0 further events in the treatment group compared to 2 and 2 in the control group, though the labels for these sub-categories were not included in the submitted data. It is worth noting that this was a small study of only 24 people, and the data as submitted does not include labels for the individual time points or adverse event sub-categories, so some details cannot be fully explained from the information provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02503852 · results posted 13 January 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02503852) enrolled 71 people across four groups to study a treatment for hair loss involving fat tissue and cells called ADRCs (adipose-derived regenerative cells). Participants were placed into one of four groups: a high-dose ADRC plus fat group (16 people), a low-dose ADRC plus fat group (22 people), a fat-alone group (24 people), and a no-fat control group (9 people). Not everyone completed the trial — 60 of the 71 who started finished the study. The reported data shows that the primary outcome measured was the number of adverse events (unexpected or unwanted medical occurrences) and serious adverse events. The high-dose ADRC plus fat group recorded 5 such events, the low-dose ADRC plus fat group recorded 9, the fat-alone group recorded 12, and the no-fat control group recorded 2. No serious adverse events were reported in any group. For the secondary outcomes, the trial tracked changes in the count of fully grown (non-vellus) hairs from the start of the study to the end. The reported data shows the low-dose ADRC plus fat group had an average increase of about 16 hairs, while the high-dose ADRC plus fat group showed an average decrease of about 6 hairs, the fat-alone group a decrease of less than 1 hair, and the no-fat control group a decrease of about 8 hairs. A satisfaction questionnaire was also completed — the percentage of participants whose scores improved by at least one point was reported as 12.5% in the high-dose group, 34.4% in the low-dose group, 20.8% in the fat-alone group, and 4.1% in the control group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01898806 · results posted 6 June 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01898806) enrolled 11 participants, all placed into a single group. The study was measuring how well a treatment could encourage hair regrowth in people with a condition affecting hair loss. The main thing researchers were looking to track was the proportion of participants who responded to treatment — defined as achieving at least 50% regrowth (measured using a scoring system called the SALT score) by week 24. Eleven people started the trial, eight completed it, and three did not finish. The reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted for the primary outcome — that is, the proportion of participants who achieved 50% or more hair regrowth by week 24. This figure was not reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so it is not possible to describe what that result was. For the secondary outcome, which tracked the number of adverse events (unwanted or unexpected health occurrences recorded during the trial), the reported data shows a figure of zero adverse events was recorded among participants. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only 11 participants, and the key result was not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01950780 · results posted 7 May 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01950780) enrolled 12 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. All participants received a medicine called ruxolitinib. The trial was measuring changes in hair loss on the scalp using a scoring tool called the SALT score (Severity of Alopecia Tool). This score runs from 0 (no hair loss) to 100 (complete hair loss on the scalp), with a lower number meaning less hair loss. The reported data shows three SALT score measurements recorded during the study for the ruxolitinib group: 65.8, 24.8, and 7.3. These appear to reflect scores taken at different points across the trial period, though the specific time points for each measurement were not detailed in the submitted data. As a reference, the starting-point figure appears to be 65.8, with later readings of 24.8 and then 7.3. In addition, the reported data shows a secondary measure — mean percentage of hair regrowth at the end of treatment — was recorded at 68.9%. It is worth noting that this was a small study of only 12 people, and the data submitted does not include a comparison group (for example, a group receiving no treatment or a different treatment). The reported figures describe what was measured in this one group only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02197455 · results posted 4 April 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 30 participants, all of whom completed the study with no drop-outs. All participants received tofacitinib. The trial was measuring changes in hair loss severity using a tool called the SALT score (Severity of Alopecia Tool), where a score of 0 means no hair loss and 100 means complete hair loss. It also measured how much the condition affected participants' quality of life using a questionnaire called the Skindex-16, where 0 means "not bothered at all" and 100 means "always bothered." The reported data shows that, on average, participants' SALT scores changed by 22.8 percent over the course of the study. The reported data also shows that participants' Skindex-16 quality-of-life scores changed by an average of minus 20.3 points (that is, scores moved lower on the scale). The trial report does not include additional detail about the direction of the SALT score change beyond the figure of 22.8, so readers should be aware that fuller context was not provided in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02014584 · results posted 8 March 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02014584) enrolled 117 participants across two main groups — 59 received a placebo (inactive treatment) and 58 received dutasteride 0.5 mg. The trial ran in stages: a 24-week "double-blind" phase (where neither participants nor doctors knew who received which treatment), followed by a 24-week "open-label" phase (where everyone received dutasteride and knew they were doing so), and a small follow-up period for some participants. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced adverse events (unexpected medical occurrences) related to sexual function — specifically, changes in sex drive, impotence, and ejaculation problems. The reported data shows that during the double-blind phase, 5 out of 59 participants in the placebo group and 9 out of 58 participants in the dutasteride group reported sexual function-related adverse events. During the open-label phase, 3 participants from the group that had previously received placebo reported such events, as did 2 participants from the group that had been on dutasteride throughout. When both phases were combined for those who took dutasteride the whole way through, 10 participants in total reported these types of events. The reported data also shows information about how long these events lasted (measured in days), though the trial notes that some of these duration figures were incomplete due to unknown start or end dates for certain events. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00484679 · results posted 20 June 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 18 people, all of whom received injections of a medication called Kenalog-10 (triamcinolone acetonide) directly into the scalp as a treatment for alopecia areata — a condition that causes patchy hair loss. Fifteen participants completed the trial, while three did not finish. The study was measuring whether these injections had any effect on the body's cortisol levels (cortisol is a natural hormone produced by the body, often associated with stress responses) over a 24-week period. Participants received four injections, spaced six weeks apart. The reported data shows that the primary outcome measured was the average (mean) change in cortisol levels from the start of the trial to week 24. The reported figure was a change of 0.187 mg/dL. No secondary outcome measures were included in the structured data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no other results can be described here. The data does not include a comparison group, so these numbers reflect only the single group of participants who received the injections. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

See the full Alopecia Areata page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.