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

Email Response from Intercytex!


#1

In their press release last year they mentioned

“In the sub-group of subjects (5 in total) whose scalp was pre-stimulated at the time of injection all subjects showed substantial and visible increased hair counts at 6 and/or 12 weeks (13-105%). We believe this increased hair production is attributable to the interaction between the injected DP cells and the stimulated resident hair producing cells.”

so I sent an email and here is the response. Not much info but gives an idea of baseline.

“All subjects in the study undergo serial hair counts in a defined region of the scalp. The percentage increases in hair count refer to the increase seen over the baseline hair count, as measured prior to treatment. Within the subset of five subjects who underwent pre-stimulation of the scalp prior to treatment, and who showed an increase in hair count of 13-105% at either 6 and 12 weeks, their baseline hair counts ranged from 85-247 hairs. The hair counts for individual subjects cannot be disclosed at this stage.”


#2

So basically the initial hair count was 85-247, it increased by 13-105% within 3 months. Note: They have yet to publish 6 month results, which probably would be higher!

I’d say thats not bad at all, good enough to give NW6 like me decent density.


#3

» So basically the initial hair count was 85-247, it increased by 13-105%
» within 3 months. Note: They have yet to publish 6 month results, which
» probably would be higher!
»
» I’d say thats not bad at all, good enough to give NW6 like me decent
» density.

the first cohort was <> up unfortunatelly. so the 6 month data will be poor.

the second cohort though should give us 4 month data and that coud be interesting


#4

» » So basically the initial hair count was 85-247, it increased by 13-105%
» » within 3 months. Note: They have yet to publish 6 month results, which
» » probably would be higher!
» »
» » I’d say thats not bad at all, good enough to give NW6 like me decent
» » density.
»
» the first cohort was <> up unfortunatelly. so the 6 month data will be
» poor.
»
» the second cohort though should give us 4 month data and that coud be
» interesting

how much big was the treatment zone ? 2-3cm squadre?


#5

I’m glad we got some new information. But we definitely need to know the treatment area size for this to mean anything. We also need the stats broken out by individual. Giving ranges without treatment area sizes still doesn’t tell us anything.

What if the treatment area size was the whole back of the head? The person with 85 hairs would have gone to 96 if he was the 13% responder. And that’s hardly anything to get excited about. Of course he could be the best responder and went from 85 to 174. That seems really good. But again, what is the treatment size. Having 174 hairs in one square centimeter is a lot different that 174 hairs in 10 square centimeters.

Again, I’m not saying it is the worst case scenario. I just don’t know. They really need to quit hiding the results in percentage ranges. They need to break it out by individual and give the treatment area size. We really need complete data before any judgment can be made.

This is a good post however. At least we know how the percentages were calculated. Hopefully the next set of data will be more complete so we can actually see if this is going to be what we hope.

If anybody knows what the treatment area size is for phase II (not phase I), please post it. That would help a lot. I don’t remember seeing it. But perhaps it is out there.


#6

my bet is 1 sq inch


#7

That would be good if it was. But does anybody have any information that actually states what it is? I also assume it will be on the smaller size, and you may be right. Sounds about right. But I would like to see some documentation stating what it is so that the stats can be put in a better context.


#8

» That would be good if it was. But does anybody have any information that
» actually states what it is? I also assume it will be on the smaller size,
» and you may be right. Sounds about right. But I would like to see some
» documentation stating what it is so that the stats can be put in a better
» context.

247 hair per cm square? too high i think, if it was exactly this means that baldness has been definitely defeated


#9

» my bet is 1 sq inch

One square inch seems reasonable, although it is England and they are much more likely to use the metric system.


#10

» Within the subset of five subjects who underwent
» pre-stimulation of the scalp prior to treatment,

I haven’t been to this forum for a long time, can someone explain what PRE STIMULATION are they talking about? I assume the “tretament” refers to ICX, but what does “pre-stimulation” involve?


#11

JeepGuy:
I haven’t been to this forum for a long time, can someone explain what PRE STIMULATION are they talking about? I assume the “tretament” refers to ICX, but what does “pre-stimulation” involve?

What does “pre-stimulation” involve in the real world? Probably a cheap bottle of wine and a handjob from the misses.

In the medical community? Perhaps some type of pre-treatment topical or Follica-style dermabrasion process prior to the cultured cell injections.

.


#12

» If anybody knows what the treatment area size is for phase II (not phase
» I), please post it. That would help a lot. I don’t remember seeing it.
» But perhaps it is out there.

If I remember correctly in Phase-II they were going to do 1000 injections divided (equally?) between one-sq inch area and a larger area. So its still vague which area they are talking about.


#13

» If I remember correctly in Phase-II they were going to do 1000 injections
» divided (equally?) between one-sq inch area and a larger area. So its
» still vague which area they are talking about.

Found it!

In phase II, there will be TWO test sites on each volunteer’s scalp. The first test site is on a completely bald area measuring about 1 sq cm. This site will be subject to100 injections of the cultured suspension. Unlike the first test site that resides on a completely bald area, the second test site is on a much larger area containing thinning hair. The second site will be subject to 900 injections. In other words, each volunteer will receive 1,000 injections divided between two test sites on his scalp. Both test sites will be administered and monitored simultaneously.

Evaluation of the 900-injections test site will be done primarily through photographic assessment of the before and after changes. A more detailed graft-by-graft hair count assessment will be performed on the smaller 100-injections test site.

So its:
100 injections in 1 sq-cm of completely bald area.
900 injections in larger thinning area


#14

Good find. Thanks. They say that the graft-by-graft hair count will be done on the 1 sq cm site. So I think we can assume the hair counts and percentages apply to the small area. But is 247 hairs in 1 sq cm really balding? I don’t know. They do say the the larger area will be evaluated “primarily” through photographic evidence, but “primarily” is open to interpretation. Does anybody know if 247 hairs is considered balding in 1 sq cm? It would be nice if that area was the 13% increase. But we don’t really know, which is why we need them separated by individuals. But this gives me a little more faith that they are seeing good results. I really hope they will be more clear with the next data. It’s really important to see all the data sets for each individual.


#15

The range they provided is ridiculous. 13%-105%.It is way too broad to be meaningful. Does it say how many test subjects fell into the 13% category ?


#16

» Does it say how many test subjects fell into the 13% category ?

Nope the email said that they can’t disclose detailed information regarding individual hair count.


#17

» But this gives me a little more faith that they are seeing good results.

Thats what I’m somewhat relieved about too. It definitely won’t make NW7s, NW0. But it would give decent coverage to NW5+ and thicken up NW4-. Probably not ideal for rebuilding temples either.

» I really hope they will be more clear with the next data. It’s really
» important to see all the data sets for each individual.

Hopefully someone at Intercytex is reading this and next month we won’t see more of mysterious percentages.


#18

» » Does it say how many test subjects fell into the 13% category ?
»
» Nope the email said that they can’t disclose detailed information
» regarding individual hair count.

Not a good sign. They are trying to be vague. It would suck big time if 50% of the people are in the 13% increase category :frowning: That would be worse than Rogaine. I mean it’s exciting but numbers they are throwing at us leave much to be desired.


#19

» The range they provided is ridiculous. 13%-105%.It is way too broad to be
» meaningful. Does it say how many test subjects fell into the 13% category
» ?

You are absolutely right. 13% is almost a placebo effect. They need to provide a median count and a standard deviation.


#20

seems pretty unexciting and shittty if you ask me.

i think we all need to live our lives and forget about this mess.

we are letting these companies play with our lives.

coming to this site all of the time is just making it worse for us.