Patient and physician perspectives on alopecia areata: A real-world assessment of severity and burden in Japan

13Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The criteria used by physicians to assess alopecia areata severity and its associated burden from the patients' point of view are not well understood. We aimed to understand physician-assessed determinants of disease severity, factors associated with severity, patient–physician concordance, and patient-reported burden by severity. Data were drawn from the Adelphi Alopecia Areata Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of dermatologists and their alopecia areata patients in real-world practice in Japan conducted between January and March 2021. Patients were categorized into three groups by current disease severity according to physician subjective assessment: mild, moderate, or severe. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were described within and compared between the three patient groups. Our study of 97 dermatologists and 587 patients found overall scalp hair loss was the most important factor considered by physicians in determining disease severity. More severe disease was associated with loss of eyebrow hair, eyelashes, and hair loss from other body areas. Agreement on disease severity between physicians and patients was moderate. From the patient perspective, greater severity of alopecia areata was associated with greater anxiety and depression, with lower work productivity and worse quality of life. Our study provides insights into which factors physicians use to determine alopecia areata severity, how physician and patient severity assessments compare, and the burden of alopecia areata on patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Edson-Heredia, E., Aranishi, T., Isaka, Y., Anderson, P., Marwaha, S., & Piercy, J. (2022). Patient and physician perspectives on alopecia areata: A real-world assessment of severity and burden in Japan. Journal of Dermatology, 49(6), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/1346-8138.16360

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free