Video from Japan Shiseido Replicel AND Riken/Kyocera on creating new follicles

Stem cell; cell based hair therapy
21

DSC’s also exhibit changes in culture. As far as I can tell, Replicel has only experimented with off-the-shelf culture mediums. Perhaps, they have found one that works slightly better.

In prior human testing, DSC’s were shown to be superior to DP cells.

22

[quote]I think it means that if you include 7 of the 10 subjects the average regrowth was 10% but if you include 10 of 10 subjects the average regrowth is 5%.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

What do the 14.2% and 11.8% mean, then?[/quote]

7 in 10 subjects had an average 14.2% increase in density and a minimum of 10% increase in density. 10 of 10 subjects had an average increase in density of 11.8% and a minimum increase of density of 5%. Keep in mind, the 10 subjects only represent 63% of all subjects.

Also, as far as the 14.5% increase in terminal hairs (in the patient shown) not being a good result. I will easily pay $1000 per procedure for a 14.5% increase in terminal hairs. Especially considering future treatments will target follicles that were dormant in the prior treatments. In fact, it’s possible the second treatment actually works better, because the first treatment caused some vellus hair to increase their anagen phase. So the subsequent treatment targets the typical short cycle vellus follicles and the additional 5 to 10 percent that were slightly affected by the prior treatment. IOW, until we see futher studies, it remains possible a good responder could get a 30% increase in terminal hairs from only two treatments.

It would be important to be on hair growth drugs prior to treatment in order to maximize the growth phase of as many follicles as possible in order for them to uptake cells, which would immunize them from future baldness. After all follicles were immunized (via multiple treatments), theoretically speaking, one could stop taking the hair growth drugs for life.

23

That’s how I interpret the data too. And there was just one dose.

14.5% increase in density is good especially if it’s long term. Are you
certain you will be the guy who gets 14.5%? Do you trust the company’s
data?

Keep in mind that some patients lost hair.

24

Being the guy that gets the 14.5% is a lottery draw. But doing all you can to ensure your existing follicles stay healthy seems to be a good strategy for now.

That said, the fact that somebody turns out to be the person that gets the 14.5% increases the chances of this procedure coming to market. Also with enough treatments, those just starting to lose their hair might not ever lose it.

25

One thing that’s curious and a bit disturbing is that 37% of patients in the CONTROL group (who were not given the proper cell injections, but presumably some kind of placebo or vehicle instead), experienced hair growth.

Also, I think the very small study size here, and their use of percentages kind of masks some statistical problems.

Like, when we talk about 63% of 16 trialists, we’re really talking about 10 of 16.

10 of 16 results positive for hair growth sounds good, but when you factor in the fact that 37% of control patients got hair growth (that would be about 6 out of 16), it doesn’t sound so impressive. (I’m using the number 16 for the control group because they may have trimmed the control group back when people were disqualified from the “verum” group – if not, it’s still a percentage so the two results are comparable.)

So we have something like this –

10 of 16 got hair growth in the trial group

6 of 16 got hair growth in the control group

I see what James is saying about the possibility for compoundable results, etc. but the above doesn’t sound too good.

26

And don’t forget the part that 3 of the test patients in the active treatment group lost hair.

27

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
And don’t forget the part that 3 of the test patients in the active treatment group lost hair.[/quote]

Right… and were the people who lost hair figured into the final percentages? If not, it sounds like cheating. That would mean the “63%” hair growth figure should in fact be lower, maybe much lower. And the average percentages of regrowth should be lower.

28

It looks to me like they compiled their data in a way that would allow them to exclude the test subjects who lost hair from the data, and I agree with you that, that amounts to cheating.

I’ve read that for the test subjects who lost hair Replicel termed those
lossed “Shock Loss”. I think they didn’t count those test subjects who lost hair in their regrowth stats because they reject the idea that it is real loss. They say it’s shock loss.

It sounds sc@mmy. I’ve never seen a hair loss research group say their losses aren’t real aga losses before.

They are starting out with the assumption that it is IMPOSSIBLE for aga to continue once they treat a subject. They are saying that if a treated patient loses hair then that patient’s stats do not count.

How is this not a sc@m?

Why do people have faith in this?

29

If 16 guys on this forum tried some kind of protocol and turned back this set of results, we wouldn’t even give it the time of day. (I mean in terms of real statistical value.) The growth cases would be encouraging but only in the personal opinion sense. The trial sample size isn’t even worth talking about. We would point to the wild differences in results as evidence that we can’t conclude anything either way.

As for the control group - Did they do rounds of multiple injections on them, even with nothing of value in the needles? That is effectively a needling/dermarolling session each time, which is known to produce slight results.

As for the people who lost hair (the implication being that they lost hair from the treatment) - not getting treated has a 100% chance of causing lost hair in the long run.

30

Cal: “As for the people who lost hair (the implication being that they lost hair from the treatment) - not getting treated has a 100% chance of causing lost hair in the long run.”

Yes, and getting treatments that don’t work also fail AND they cause you to lose money.

31

No S*@#t.

I’m just pointing out that our baseline condition is only static in the short term. Getting long term loss stabilization alone from a new treatment would be huge. The bean-counters probably won’t see it that way which could be unfortunate for us IMO.

But I am also saying Replicel hasn’t shown anything too interesting here. If Shisheido paid them several million dollars based on these results alone then they are idiots (or gamblers).

32

You could actually walk away from this with less hair AND less money.

33

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
You could actually walk away from this with less hair AND less money.[/quote]

Q.- What do you call a guy who goes on the existing treatments for 5-6 years, and winds up a couple thousand dollars poorer, with a bit less hair than he started?

A.- A good responder.