Farjo Clinic updated web page = Nothing new!
See link
http://www.farjo.net/page.asp?id=203
» Farjo Clinic updated web page = Nothing new!
»
» See link
» http://www.farjo.net/page.asp?id=203
They now claim only 4 of 5 who were prestimulated grew hair and that one “couldn’t be measured for technical reasons”—whatever that means.
They also note five pateints have been "lost to follow-up"
What they hell kind of trial is that???
It will be VERY interesting to see if ICX is willing to post any before-after PICTURES of growth this September. Time to put up or SHUT UP!!!
»
» They also note five pateints have been “lost to follow-up”
» What they hell kind of trial is that???
»
»
»
Hairsite, is it clear what we are talking about ?
In press release “ALL of subject increase hair cont bla bla bla”.
9 days after… and now 4 of 5 . (ops ok…of course “not valuable for tecnical reason…” )
Five follow up, and not clear data.
What should we think about ?
I hope i’m too pessimistic.
Holly sh*t!! Hanging was right!!
quote Hanging:
as far as I read phase 2 only had less than 20 test subjects and a lot of them dropped out on top of that. <<
I thought that only 1 had dropped out!!
But now they say 5 out of 19 were lost!!
This is really really negative.
Copy of the article at Farjo (just the important part):
>>>
Latest Update released on March 18th, 2008 on Phase II of the clinical trial:
We have now completed the treatment phase of our Phase II study designed to optimise the delivery of the DP cells.
In this study, hair counts are obtained by shaving and photographing a small section of scalp, injecting it and then applying a specialised image analysis system to provide a total hair count. All 19 subjects in the trial have now been treated using a range of injection and scalp pre-stimulation techniques; the first 6 subjects were injected without stimulation of the scalp. In the remaining 13 the resident hair producing (epithelial) cells were stimulated at the time of delivery of the DP cells.
11 subjects have now passed the 24-week time point since treatment and specialised image analysis at this time point showed:
Of the group of 6 patients without stimulation of the scalp, 3 had an increased hair count and two had a reduced hair count; one has been lost to follow-up.
Of the 5 subjects with pre-treatment scalp stimulation, 4 had an increased hair count and the hair count in one subject could not be measured for technical reasons.
These data are consistent with the earlier data reported last September and the hypothesis that new hair production is improved by pre-stimulation of the scalp, leading to an interaction between the injected cells and the resident hair producing cells.
24 week data on all subjects in the trial will be available in September 2008 and at the end of the trial photographic data will be analysed from a much larger area of treated scalp on all subjects at 48 weeks.
Currently 5 subjects who were treated have been lost to follow up.
<<<<<<<<<
maybe these 5 trialists belong to Phase I?
in any case, these trials are becoming bizarre.
Note that the first part of that page at Farjo, contains the old information that was posted at ICX website. They still mention the 2010 date.
Now in ICX site, the page has been updated, and the 2010 date is not mentioned anymore.
old text:
The trial is designed to demonstrate efficacy of ICX-TRC, the dosage regime and the delivery device. Preliminary data from this trial phase are expected during the second half of 2007. A commercial product is not expected to be available before 2010.
<<<<
» Note that the first part of that page at Farjo, contains the old
» information that was posted at ICX website. They still mention the 2010
» date.
» Now in ICX site, the page has been updated, and the 2010 date is not
» mentioned anymore.
What’s ??
I read still 2010 on icx-trc FAQ page…
Please confirm 
» » Note that the first part of that page at Farjo, contains the old
» » information that was posted at ICX website. They still mention the 2010
» » date.
» » Now in ICX site, the page has been updated, and the 2010 date is not
» » mentioned anymore.
»
» What’s ??
» I read still 2010 on icx-trc FAQ page…
» Please confirm
the FAQ page has not been updated.
The main TRC page has been updated, and the 2010 mention has been removed:
» » » Note that the first part of that page at Farjo, contains the old
» » » information that was posted at ICX website. They still mention the
» 2010
» » » date.
» » » Now in ICX site, the page has been updated, and the 2010 date is not
» » » mentioned anymore.
» »
» » What’s ??
» » I read still 2010 on icx-trc FAQ page…
» » Please confirm
»
» the FAQ page has not been updated.
» The main TRC page has been updated, and the 2010 mention has been
» removed:
»
» http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/
You guys are speculating way too much. Listen to the advice that hairsite has given.
»
» the FAQ page has not been updated.
» The main TRC page has been updated, and the 2010 mention has been
» removed:
»
» http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/
You’re right ,wayback machine confirm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070817152237/http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/) ,but in this case i assume it’s only a result of a choice in page update ; they have not changed FAQ page.
…at least for now…
(I hope it’s clear the mean i 've in mind, sorry for my poor english )
» » the FAQ page has not been updated.
» » The main TRC page has been updated, and the 2010 mention has been
» » removed:
» »
» » http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/
»
»
»
» You guys are speculating way too much. Listen to the advice that hairsite
» has given.
Dave ,you (HERE!) are right, see my post .
» »
» » the FAQ page has not been updated.
» » The main TRC page has been updated, and the 2010 mention has been
» » removed:
» »
» » http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/
»
» You’re right ,wayback machine confirm
» (http://web.archive.org/web/20070817152237/http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/)
» ,but in this case i assume it’s only a result of a choice in page update ;
» they have not changed FAQ page.
»
» …at least for now…
»
» (I hope it’s clear the mean i 've in mind, sorry for my poor english )
your english is ok. 
That archived page of ICX doesn’t mention the 2010 date. I think its too old. I think it was mentioned in a later update.
According to the URL, the date is 20070817, but I think it is older than that,
because they say:
Preliminary data from this trial are expected during the first half of 2007.
<<
After further analizing the data posted at Farjo:
I think that, of the 5 lost patients, 4 of them belong to phase I, and only 1 belongs to phase II.
This is the only logic possibility.
I say this, because they only mention that 1 patient was lost in phase II (in the non-preestimulated group). In the preestimulated group, they say 4/5 increased hair, and 1/5 could not be evaluated, but this one was not lost.
The other 8 have been recently injected, and they presumably have not been lost.
So the other 4 patients could belong to phase I, where the trialists were injected several years ago. This is the group of 7 patients, where 5 regrew hair. It is logical to think that 4 of them have abandoned.
http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/faqsicxtrc/
“2. When will ICX-TRC be on the market?
ICX-TRC is classified as a medicine by the regulatory authorities and hence has to undergo a series of clinical trials before it can be offered on the market. We currently estimate that the earliest that ICX-TRC would be available on the market is 2010 although we don’t know in which country it will be launched first.”
» http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/faqsicxtrc/
»
» “2. When will ICX-TRC be on the market?
» ICX-TRC is classified as a medicine by the regulatory authorities and
» hence has to undergo a series of clinical trials before it can be offered
» on the market. We currently estimate that the earliest that ICX-TRC would
» be available on the market is 2010 although we don’t know in which country
» it will be launched first.”
yes, that is the FAQ.
I am referring to the main TRC page (the one with the drawing explaining the process). I think it mentioned 2010. Now it doesn’t.
» » http://www.intercytex.com/icx/products/aesthetic/icxtrc/faqsicxtrc/
» »
» » “2. When will ICX-TRC be on the market?
» » ICX-TRC is classified as a medicine by the regulatory authorities and
» » hence has to undergo a series of clinical trials before it can be
» offered
» » on the market. We currently estimate that the earliest that ICX-TRC
» would
» » be available on the market is 2010 although we don’t know in which
» country
» » it will be launched first.”
»
»
» yes, that is the FAQ.
» I am referring to the main TRC page (the one with the drawing explaining
» the process). I think it mentioned 2010. Now it doesn’t.
Oh I see, I don’t recall seeing it on the main page, but I’ve only been following ICX TRC for a few months. Maybe they need to update their FAQ?
» Oh I see, I don’t recall seeing it on the main page,
+1
» » Oh I see, I don’t recall seeing it on the main page,
»
» +1
okay, maybe I am wrong on this.