P Gressenberger1, D Kopera2. 1. Universitätsklinik für Dermatologie und Venerologie, Medizinische Universität Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 8, 8036, Graz, Österreich. paul.gressenberger@medunigraz.at. 2. Universitätsklinik für Dermatologie und Venerologie, Medizinische Universität Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 8, 8036, Graz, Österreich. daisy.kopera@medunigraz.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections have been reported to be an effective and low side effect treatment for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). However, robust data concerning this therapy are lacking. AIM: We address some potentially critical aspects of PRP treatment and give some reasons why study results may differ. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the following review we give a brief overview of the current literature and compare the results of the various trials. RESULTS: In recent years, several clinical trials have been published that have revealed different but rather positive results, which offers hope to those affected by AGA and to physicians as well. However, the results were observed in methodologically weak trials and data from randomized controlled trials are lacking. Differences in trial designs have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about its clinical efficacy. Even in the studies where no hair-growth-promoting effect could be observed, the majority of subjects were at least satisfied with the result. The combination of several treatment approaches seems to lead to optimal improvement in hair growth. CONCLUSION: There are many factors that could have influenced the results of the different studies. The results were observed in methodologically weak studies, giving reason for caution when drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, the majority of the subjects were at least satisfied with the result. Given the current low level of evidence, PRP treatments need to be further investigated in larger studies.
BACKGROUND: Platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections have been reported to be an effective and low side effect treatment for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). However, robust data concerning this therapy are lacking. AIM: We address some potentially critical aspects of PRP treatment and give some reasons why study results may differ. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the following review we give a brief overview of the current literature and compare the results of the various trials. RESULTS: In recent years, several clinical trials have been published that have revealed different but rather positive results, which offers hope to those affected by AGA and to physicians as well. However, the results were observed in methodologically weak trials and data from randomized controlled trials are lacking. Differences in trial designs have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about its clinical efficacy. Even in the studies where no hair-growth-promoting effect could be observed, the majority of subjects were at least satisfied with the result. The combination of several treatment approaches seems to lead to optimal improvement in hair growth. CONCLUSION: There are many factors that could have influenced the results of the different studies. The results were observed in methodologically weak studies, giving reason for caution when drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, the majority of the subjects were at least satisfied with the result. Given the current low level of evidence, PRP treatments need to be further investigated in larger studies.