Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Bad/Good from ICX-TRC


#1

Hi all,

Here’s the good news:

  1. In the latest iteration ALL of the clients grew at least some hairs, with an efficacy as high as 103%. Awesome!
  2. Results from latest cohort appeared very shortly – in 6/12 weeks!
  3. ICX-TRC is very safe, with no reports of tumors, scars, etc from the procedure
  4. Results are NOT enough to undermine the HT industry, thus making them more receptive of using HM as a “filler” for vertex/crown – perhaps (ironically) aiding in commercialization
  5. Nevertheless, Intercytex’s results are promising enough that they will likely have a product from ICX-TRC (eventually) – at least to compete with Rogaine, HTs, propecia, etc

Here’s the bad news:

  1. It’s taking a LOT longer than expected, even by Intercytex’s own predictions – and it’s clear the earlier Phase II trials were failures (2/5 clients with regrowth is worse than Phase I)
  2. We don’t know the scalp characteristics of the clients – will ICX-TRC work on completely bald scalp, for example?
  3. More waiting – until spring of 2008 – for next cohort’s results
  4. The dispersion of results is ENORMOUS – i.e., very low accuracy
  5. They didn’t report the median or mean growth count in the last sub-group (which seems odd to me), so the dispersion could be like this: 13%, 14%, 13%, 15%, 103%
  6. They don’t even bother mentioning the cosmetic feasibility of these hairs – are they full hairs with natural-looking growth?
  7. The best possible spin on these results is: “increase hair counts” and “encouraging”

And here’s the weird news:

  1. Two patients have been “lost” on follow-up – what the f**k? Is this incompetence by Intercytex, a way to “hide” unpromising results, or what?
  2. “Stimulation” of the epidermis prior to injection aids in efficacy – what does this mean? Could it (ahem) refer to some kind of micro-level wounding?
  3. Why is Phase II taking so long if results are visible by 6-24 weeks? Those are MONTHS, not YEARS!
  4. Do these hairs cycle like normal hairs and are they resistant to DHT?
  5. Why not take a full photograph of the scalp now, rather than at the end of the trial?

In short: anyone interested in trying out needling/lithium/DMSO?? :smiley:

Best,
BB


#2

Just an observation on your “bad news” number 5, which seems to be a point MANY here are missing.

Group 2’s result occured over a 6-12 week period. That’s HALF the time of group one which had treatment twice as long.

Given that bit of overlooked info 103% is amazing, 13%,14%,13%,15% is still pretty good for a maximum of three months NOT TO MENTION this was the first group with out any tweaked protocol.


#3

I’d add that I’m not completely satisfied with the results of Phase II, it could be much worse. And so I’d be willing to shell out 5k for a procedure NOW if it involved DP cells plus epidermal stimulation (wounding…?)

» Just an observation on your “bad news” number 5, which seems to be a point
» MANY here are missing.
»
» Group 2’s result occured over a 6-12 week period. That’s HALF the time of
» group one which had treatment twice as long.
»
» Given that bit of overlooked info 103% is amazing, 13%,14%,13%,15% is
» still pretty good for a maximum of three months NOT TO MENTION this was
» the first group with out any tweaked protocol.


#4

the fact that people are even comparing it to propecia and rogaine lowers my expectations. if that’s their main competition then we are in trouble. what a joke.

maybe its time to start bombarding them with questions? :slight_smile:


#5

I agree with that.

But I don’t see where everyone is so downed by those numbers though. If the stuff regrows hair at only 10% each round, then it’s not like everyone’s only gonna go for one round and then quit.

It seems like that would only be a money problem and not so much of a true efficacy hurdle. Keep throwing enough of these treatments at your head, and the results will be there.

I’d be satisfied with the stuff on the market with just 13% efficacy at the beginning. Still beats traditional HTs. We know they’ll probably make a lot more progress on this stuff over time.


#6

» But I don’t see where everyone is so downed by those numbers though. If
» the stuff regrows hair at only 10% each round, then it’s not like
» everyone’s only gonna go for one round and then quit.

I agree, Cal. Those numbers are actually quite good for a one-time injection. I’d be happy with a 10% improvement each time! I just wish Intercytex would do multiple injections of DP cells on the same individual – let’s say an injection every 6 weeks, with a total of 3-5 injections. This is the norm for “non-invasive” dermatological procedures. For example, for wrinkle treatments people usually use the “Fraxel” laser, which uses fractional photothermolysis technology to burn away the top layer of skin in micro-zones. The result is that ONLY after a series of 3-5 treatments that you have a 50-75% improvement in wrinkles. After one treatment the efficacy is about 10-20% at most.

This would also be great for Intercytex’s marketing scheme. They could market Trichocyte as a lower-cost, no-down-time alternative to HT. You just get your injections and go on about your daily life. Then after 6-12 months you have a MUCH thicker, fuller head of hair. BTW, to compare costs – the fraxel costs 5k for 3 injections. HM will cost more than that, but you could easily imagine the demand at prices as high as 10k for 3 treatments.

Best,
BB


#7

It’s perfectly normal to lose patients on trials. People lose interest, don’t bother showing up for appointments, move away, etc.

My flatmate was involved in a trial measuring diets, and they had so many drop outs that he got us enrolled halfway through.