Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40765272›Full record

ArticleThe Australasian journal of dermatology2025

Criteria for Commencing and Continuing Subsidised Janus Kinase Inhibitor Therapy in Australian Alopecia Areata Patients-Results From an Australian Expert Consensus Exercise.

Meryl Thomas, Madeline Hankins, Emadodin Darchini-Maragheh, Laita Bokhari, Samantha Eisman, Leona Yip, Katherine York, Jane Li, Pooja Sharma, Daranporn Triwongwaranat and 14 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in The Australasian journal of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Meryl ThomasMonash School of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6847-7153
Madeline HankinsSinclair DIRECT, Dermatology Investigational Research, Education and Clinical Trials Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Emadodin Darchini-MaraghehSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Laita BokhariSinclair DIRECT, Dermatology Investigational Research, Education and Clinical Trials Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Samantha EismanSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0111-6403
Leona YipSkin Partners, Specialist Dermatologists, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7120-6610
Katherine YorkBeachside Specialist Group, Noosa Heads, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2905-4494
Jane LiSkin Health Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Pooja SharmaSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5070-3722
Daranporn TriwongwaranatSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7388-1249
Vijaya ChitreddySinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-9592
Ragini GhiyaSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Daniella Kushnir-GrinbaumSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0501-5311
John FrewenSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1193-9430
Shin Shen YongSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5031-3492
Deepani RathnayakeSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
William CranwellDermatology Clinics Australia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6368-5738
Dmitri WallHair Restoration Blackrock, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0107-4488
Vanathy VarathanSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kiarash KhosrotehraniDermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Frazer Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6406-4076
David OrchardDepartment of Dermatology, Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anthony MoussaSinclair DIRECT, Dermatology Investigational Research, Education and Clinical Trials Centre, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5318-6553
Meghana ParanjapeSinclair Dermatology, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rodney SinclairSinclair DIRECT, Dermatology Investigational Research, Education and Clinical Trials Centre, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6751-1428

Funding

Australasian Hair and Wool Research Society
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) have been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for severe alopecia areata (AA) in Australia. However, access is limited as JAKis are not currently subsidised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for this indication. This study aimed to establish expert consensus on criteria for initiating and continuing subsidised JAKi therapy for AA.

methodsAn eDelphi study was conducted with 26 Australian specialists in hair and scalp disorders, who participated in two online survey rounds. A third round, held as a virtual meeting, facilitated discussion. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement or disagreement.

resultsTwenty-six, twenty-two, and twenty-five experts completed the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. Experts agreed that JAKis were nearly always the best treatment for cases with ≥ 50% scalp hair loss and usually the best treatment for 21%-49% scalp hair loss. The most important additional factors when assessing eligibility for JAKis were refractory disease, rapid progression, psychosocial morbidity, poorly camouflaged hair loss, ophiasis pattern, and impaired quality of life. Treatment failure was defined as < 50% improvement in scalp hair loss after 12 months of therapy. Indicators of remission included achieving SALT 0, regrowth of facial hair, improved DLQI scores, patient satisfaction, negative hair pull test, and reduced psychosocial impairment.

conclusionsThis expert consensus provides a framework for determining eligibility for subsidised JAKi therapy in Australian AA patients. Future research, supported by patient registries, should incorporate patient perspectives to further refine these criteria, ensure equitable access to treatment, and assess real-world impact, safety, and effectiveness.

Indexed as

Alopecia AreataJanus Kinase InhibitorsAustraliaConsensusHumansQuality of LifeJanus Kinase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID40765272
PMCPMC12633699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.