Centralized hair loss measurement showed better agreement and 50% lower error margins than local rating in mild-to-moderate Alopecia Areata.

Background In clinical trials for alopecia areata (AA) the treatment effect (percentage of hair loss) is estimated using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score. Trials in patients with severe AA (>=50% hair loss) employed a local rating of the SALT score performed at trial sites by different investigators. However, in mild-to-moderate AA (<= 50% hair loss) where SALT scores are lower, potential inter rater variability and margin of error may compromise the results. Objectives To compare Centralised and Local measurement of hair loss in mild moderate AA. Methods In a Phase 2 clinical trial a centralised measurement of hair loss was performed from photographic images taken using a standardised protocol and professional camera equipment. Local scoring was also undertaken at screening/baseline for eligibility. We assessed: the repeatability of the central system (screening vs baseline values), the reproducibility of the central versus the local rating system and the potential impact of each method on the endpoints using a Monte-Carlo simulation method. Results There was good agreement and consistency of scoring with Central rating. This provided much smaller margins of error, 50% lower than Local rating. The simulations demonstrated that substituting Local rating for Central rating would result in a reduction of the likelihood of a statistically significant outcome by at least 50% depending on the SALT score defined clinical response endpoint. Conclusions Central rating is most appropriate in the Phase 2 learning stage of clinical development and provides an accurate representation of the quantity of hair loss, minimising error and ensuring consistency in measurements.