Roy Xiao1,2, Ciersten A Burks1,2, Jenny Yau1, Adeeb Derakhshan1,2, Rui Han Liu1,2, Maryanne M Senna3,4, Mariko R Yasuda5, Nate Jowett1,2,6, Linda N Lee7,8,9. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Dermatology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Lahey Hair Loss Center of Excellence and Research Unit, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, 243 Charles Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 7. Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA. linda_lee@meei.harvard.edu. 8. Department of Otolaryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. linda_lee@meei.harvard.edu. 9. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, 243 Charles Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. linda_lee@meei.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hair loss causes significant psychosocial distress to patients. Health utility measurements offer an objective, quantitative assessment of health-related quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study on patients with hair loss between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. Patient metrics were compared with layperson perception of alopecia, prospectively collected between August 1 and December 31, 2017. Health utility measures were quantified using the visual analog scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), and time trade-off (TTO) in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and relative to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Bonferroni correction to the significance threshold was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with alopecia were compared with 237 laypeople. Patient metrics for female hair loss were all significantly lower than laypeople measures (VAS QALYs 0.65 ± 0.21 vs. 0.83 ± 0.18, p = 0.0001). Mean SG QALYs were lower for patients in the male alopecia state (0.86 ± 0.23 vs. 0.96 ± 0.12, p = 0.0278). Post-hair transplant improvement in TTO was significantly greater for patients (+ 0.08 ± 0.12 vs. + 0.02 ± 0.09, p = 0.0070) and significantly more often exceeded the MCID (45.2% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Alopecia negatively impacts QOL, and the true patient experience is more taxing than what is perceived by laypeople. Hair transplantation improves QOL more for male patients than common perception. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Hair loss causes significant psychosocial distress to patients. Health utility measurements offer an objective, quantitative assessment of health-related quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study on patients with hair loss between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. Patient metrics were compared with layperson perception of alopecia, prospectively collected between August 1 and December 31, 2017. Health utility measures were quantified using the visual analog scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), and time trade-off (TTO) in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and relative to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Bonferroni correction to the significance threshold was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with alopecia were compared with 237 laypeople. Patient metrics for female hair loss were all significantly lower than laypeople measures (VAS QALYs 0.65 ± 0.21 vs. 0.83 ± 0.18, p = 0.0001). Mean SG QALYs were lower for patients in the male alopecia state (0.86 ± 0.23 vs. 0.96 ± 0.12, p = 0.0278). Post-hair transplant improvement in TTO was significantly greater for patients (+ 0.08 ± 0.12 vs. + 0.02 ± 0.09, p = 0.0070) and significantly more often exceeded the MCID (45.2% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Alopecia negatively impacts QOL, and the true patient experience is more taxing than what is perceived by laypeople. Hair transplantation improves QOL more for male patients than common perception. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Dow Stough; Kurt Stenn; Robert Haber; William M Parsley; James E Vogel; David A Whiting; Ken Washenik Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Cecilia A C Prinsen; Robert Lindeboom; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Catharina M Legierse; John de Korte Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Kristin L Bater; Masaru Ishii; Andrew Joseph; Peiyi Su; Jason Nellis; Lisa E Ishii Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 4.611