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

Dr. Farjo joins Balding Blog as an author and gives update on ICX-TRC


#1

Dr. Farjo who has been conducting the Intercytex trials has become an author on Balding Blog. He has posted an update regarding the ICX-TRC clinical trials -

It is not too different from Intercytex’s press release but does give some additional information.


#2

Interesting stats

Of the 13 subjects completing the trial the data showed that:

65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs over 30 microns in diameter
78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the treatment by increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
The overall take rate (number of hairs produced per 100 injections) in the stimulated areas was
40% (n=6) for hairs of all sizes
18% (n=6) for hairs over 30 microns in diameter


#3

yeah so anyway, what we are interested in are 30 microns plus hair. i guess 50 microns plus would be realy great,

30 microns plus you get 18% take rate, so 1000 injections done in an hour you get 180 somehow terminal looking hair that are probably not as thick as youd wish for. mmm its not bad, but not awesome either.

it needs some boost.


#4

» yeah so anyway, what we are interested in are 30 microns plus hair. i guess
» 50 microns plus would be realy great,
»
» 30 microns plus you get 18% take rate, so 1000 injections done in an hour
» you get 180 somehow terminal looking hair that are probably not as thick as
» youd wish for. mmm its not bad, but not awesome either.
»
» it needs some boost.

maybe minox?


#5

» » yeah so anyway, what we are interested in are 30 microns plus hair. i
» guess
» » 50 microns plus would be realy great,
» »
» » 30 microns plus you get 18% take rate, so 1000 injections done in an
» hour
» » you get 180 somehow terminal looking hair that are probably not as thick
» as
» » youd wish for. mmm its not bad, but not awesome either.
» »
» » it needs some boost.
»
» maybe minox?

I think the TRC results are comparable to minox… at best.


#6

» » » yeah so anyway, what we are interested in are 30 microns plus hair. i
» » guess
» » » 50 microns plus would be realy great,
» » »
» » » 30 microns plus you get 18% take rate, so 1000 injections done in an
» » hour
» » » you get 180 somehow terminal looking hair that are probably not as
» thick
» » as
» » » youd wish for. mmm its not bad, but not awesome either.
» » »
» » » it needs some boost.
» »
» » maybe minox?
»
» I think the TRC results are comparable to minox… at best.

I am sure that Minox also thickens the hair shafts.


#7

I’m not optimistic about TRC at this point either.

But it should be noted that Minox isnt’t gonna do anything long-term for the MPB.

If ICX can thicken shafts even slightly, that’s still huge if those gains are real improvements against the androgen damage, and repeatable with ever-compounding progress.


#8

Let’s see… half my head is bald (very few hairs over 30 microns) so I need approximately 10,000 new hairs (average hair count for people with full head of hair is 20,000). Therefore, all I need is 55,555 injections at an 18% success ratio and I’m there! All I can say is how much $ for the injections and how much $ for the morphine??


#9

» I’m not optimistic about TRC at this point either.
»
»
»
» But it should be noted that Minox isnt’t gonna do anything long-term for
» the MPB.
»
» If ICX can thicken shafts even slightly, that’s still huge if those gains
» are real improvements against the androgen damage, and repeatable with
» ever-compounding progress.

What do you mean for “repeatable with ever-compounding progress.”?
We don’t know what are the effects of TRC in the long term, but I am not very optimistic. I suspect that they will be short lived and you will need more injections to keep the results, and you won’t be able to improve any further.
But of course, we don’t know, as ICX is giving so little info.

Minoxidil is oviously a big hassle, having to apply it twice a day. If the effects of TRC were comparable to minox, and permanent, then it would be a big plus, no doubt.


#10

» Let’s see… half my head is bald (very few hairs over 30 microns) so I
» need approximately 10,000 new hairs (average hair count for people with
» full head of hair is 20,000). Therefore, all I need is 55,555 injections
» at an 18% success ratio and I’m there! All I can say is how much $ for the
» injections and how much $ for the morphine??

yeah, thats a lot. But looking at it from other point:
I think having 5 injections per hair is easier than transplanting a hair from the donor site to the recipient (using FUE).
so, if you need 10k hairs, a FU job would also be very costy.

All depends on how fast they can inject.


#11

» Let’s see… half my head is bald (very few hairs over 30 microns) so I
» need approximately 10,000 new hairs (average hair count for people with
» full head of hair is 20,000). Therefore, all I need is 55,555 injections
» at an 18% success ratio and I’m there! All I can say is how much $ for the
» injections and how much $ for the morphine??

Ahm, no! :wink: Average hair count for people with a full head of hair is 100,000. If half your head is bald, you’ll need 50,000 new hairs for a completely full head of hair. However, you’ll only need 25,000 hairs for a reasonably good density. So at 18% success rate (assuming 30 micron hairs are all fine by us) that’s 25,000/0.18 = 138,000 injections.

Farjo mentioned that it takes 1 hour to do 1000 injections. Let’s assume that 2 technicians work simultaneously for an 8 hour session. So that’s 138/2*8 ~ 9 sessions.

Not great but viable. The good news is that it establishes a lower bound for what’s possible. Personally I think ARI will fair much better than ICX.


#12

» » Let’s see… half my head is bald (very few hairs over 30 microns) so I
» » need approximately 10,000 new hairs (average hair count for people with
» » full head of hair is 20,000). Therefore, all I need is 55,555
» injections
» » at an 18% success ratio and I’m there! All I can say is how much $ for
» the
» » injections and how much $ for the morphine??
»
» Ahm, no! :wink: Average hair count for people with a full head of hair is
» 100,000. If half your head is bald, you’ll need 50,000 new hairs for a
» completely full head of hair. However, you’ll only need 25,000 hairs for a
» reasonably good density. So at 18% success rate (assuming 30 micron hairs
» are all fine by us) that’s 25,000/0.18 = 138,000 injections.
»
» Farjo mentioned that it takes 1 hour to do 1000 injections. Let’s assume
» that 2 technicians work simultaneously for an 8 hour session. So that’s
» 138/2*8 ~ 9 sessions.
»
» Not great but viable. The good news is that it establishes a lower bound
» for what’s possible. Personally I think ARI will fair much better than
» ICX.

Ok, thanks for the input. I didn’t know (or didn’t remember) the 1000 injections/hour figure. Thats pretty good. I mean, this is 200 new hairs per hour, and no wasted donor hair. The problem is that we don’t know anything about these hairs… well, we now know thickness, but not direction, shape, …will the effect be permanent?
If the hairs are normal and they last long, I would say this would be pretty good. To restore a full head of hair in a couple of weeks??? why not???

But again, I think this is wishful thinking. Right now I would not trust
this “take rate” given by ICX. I think they are inflating figures and prospects. In theory, ICX PRO was very good according to ICX-PhaseII data. But now we see PhaseIII failed.

I don’t trust ICX anymore. But of course, a few decent TRC photos would make me reconsider…


#13

» » Let’s see… half my head is bald (very few hairs over 30 microns) so I
» » need approximately 10,000 new hairs (average hair count for people with
» » full head of hair is 20,000). Therefore, all I need is 55,555
» injections
» » at an 18% success ratio and I’m there! All I can say is how much $ for
» the
» » injections and how much $ for the morphine??
»
» Ahm, no! :wink: Average hair count for people with a full head of hair is
» 100,000. If half your head is bald, you’ll need 50,000 new hairs for a
» completely full head of hair. However, you’ll only need 25,000 hairs for a
» reasonably good density. So at 18% success rate (assuming 30 micron hairs
» are all fine by us) that’s 25,000/0.18 = 138,000 injections.
»
» Farjo mentioned that it takes 1 hour to do 1000 injections. Let’s assume
» that 2 technicians work simultaneously for an 8 hour session. So that’s
» 138/2*8 ~ 9 sessions.
»
» Not great but viable. The good news is that it establishes a lower bound
» for what’s possible. Personally I think ARI will fair much better than
» ICX.

1000 injections per hour…This is 16 injections per minute!! Thats about 3 hairs per minute. 1 new hair each 20 seconds.
Lets assume ARI can get a 100% take rate using their scaffolds. But how much time does it get to plant an scaffold in the scalp? Maybe they are not faster than ICX.

But again, I would not trust this “20 seconds per hair” figure. If this was true, ICX stocks would be much higher.


#14

I think you’re doing the math for the entire head. Usually the sides and back of the head are immune to badling…possibly thinning, but not balding. So divide the numbers by about 2.

» » » Let’s see… half my head is bald (very few hairs over 30 microns) so
» I
» » » need approximately 10,000 new hairs (average hair count for people
» with
» » » full head of hair is 20,000). Therefore, all I need is 55,555
» » injections
» » » at an 18% success ratio and I’m there! All I can say is how much $
» for
» » the
» » » injections and how much $ for the morphine??
» »
» » Ahm, no! :wink: Average hair count for people with a full head of hair
» is
» » 100,000. If half your head is bald, you’ll need 50,000 new hairs for a
» » completely full head of hair. However, you’ll only need 25,000 hairs
» for a
» » reasonably good density. So at 18% success rate (assuming 30 micron
» hairs
» » are all fine by us) that’s 25,000/0.18 = 138,000 injections.
» »
» » Farjo mentioned that it takes 1 hour to do 1000 injections. Let’s
» assume
» » that 2 technicians work simultaneously for an 8 hour session. So
» that’s
» » 138/2*8 ~ 9 sessions.
» »
» » Not great but viable. The good news is that it establishes a lower
» bound
» » for what’s possible. Personally I think ARI will fair much better than
» » ICX.
»
» 1000 injections per hour…This is 16 injections per minute!! Thats about
» 3 hairs per minute. 1 new hair each 20 seconds.
» Lets assume ARI can get a 100% take rate using their scaffolds. But how
» much time does it get to plant an scaffold in the scalp? Maybe they are not
» faster than ICX.
»
» But again, I would not trust this “20 seconds per hair” figure. If this
» was true, ICX stocks would be much higher.


#15

I personally think that ICX-TRC is a dead-end. I don’t think we’ll ever see anything viable from that product from ICX.

I believe their “proto-hairs” product is the one they should have been focusing on. And I still believe that. Either ICX or somebody else. I mean, if you can actually create the hairs individually outside the body and then implant them, you know what you are getting. If they can actually create the entire hair structure outside, there is no guesswork on how many hairs you are going to get. You get as many as you want them to create.

Unfortunately they have indicated that this is even further away than ICX-TRC (which I believe will never amount to anything).


#16

» I personally think that ICX-TRC is a dead-end. I don’t think we’ll ever
» see anything viable from that product from ICX.
»
» I believe their “proto-hairs” product is the one they should have been
» focusing on. And I still believe that. Either ICX or somebody else. I
» mean, if you can actually create the hairs individually outside the body
» and then implant them, you know what you are getting. If they can actually
» create the entire hair structure outside, there is no guesswork on how many
» hairs you are going to get. You get as many as you want them to create.
»
» Unfortunately they have indicated that this is even further away than
» ICX-TRC (which I believe will never amount to anything).

Even if they finally come up with something viable for the mass public, I think the cost will be out of reach for most people.


#17

»
» What do you mean for “repeatable with ever-compounding progress.”?
» We don’t know what are the effects of TRC in the long term, but I am not
» very optimistic. I suspect that they will be short lived and you will need
» more injections to keep the results, and you won’t be able to improve any
» further.
» But of course, we don’t know, as ICX is giving so little info.
»
» Minoxidil is oviously a big hassle, having to apply it twice a day. If the
» effects of TRC were comparable to minox, and permanent, then it would be a
» big plus, no doubt.

SpanishDude, i think the difference between minoxidil and icx is that minoxidil is a drug, meaning that it will hit an upward limit like a ceiling, of biochemical effectiveness.

But by contrast, icx is a medical procedure which doesn’t necessarily hit an upward limit like a pharmaceutical drug will.

If all other factors are controlled, there is no real difference between the tissue receiving the first treatment of icx, and the tissue receiving the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. treatments.

Unlike with a drug, the effectiveness of a biological/medical procedure is not curtailed by metabolisation rates of the drug, pharmacokinetics, toxicity, osmotic uptake, intercellular transport and channels, concentration, clearance rates, enzymatic destruction, etc.

So with a drug you would expect to see a plateau of effectiveness, and you eventually hit a “brick wall” or “point of diminishing returns”.

But a medical procedure can simply be done again and again, and you GENERALLY would expect to see that the results are cumulative. You don’t meet a point of diminishing returns, or at least, if you do, it happens much later than with a drug.


#18

Cost is irrelevant. People put way too much on cost. It doesn’t matter if it costs 100K or more to restore your hair when it first comes out. The cost will come down in time, where it will be affordable by the masses. The important thing is to get something that works now, no matter what the cost. Then and only then will the cost come down.


#19

Cost only comes down when there’s competitive market. Who’s competing?

» Cost is irrelevant. People put way too much on cost. It doesn’t matter if
» it costs 100K or more to restore your hair when it first comes out. The
» cost will come down in time, where it will be affordable by the masses.
» The important thing is to get something that works now, no matter what the
» cost. Then and only then will the cost come down.


#20

There was one automobile invented first. And yet there were dozens of makes within a few years.