Janus Kinase JAK inhibitors tofacitinib grow hair - Dr. Christiano

I don’t know much about this avenue of hair loss research but I do know that you will need specific information before doing a DIY experiment with a drug. We need to know what the drug is soluble in and we need to know the correct dose to use.

Unfortunately we do not know what these medicines are soluble in and we have no idea what dose would be needed. We could probably find out what it’s soluble in because they probably tested that, but it’s doubtful that anyone has tested what doses applied topically produces the desired local biological effect.

I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere just slapping this stuff on our scalps and hoping for the best, like DR. Christiano said,

“More work needs to be done to test formulations of JAK inhibitors specially made for the scalp to determine whether they can induce hair growth in humans.”

The way they’re forumlated is going to be extremely difficult to figure out at home, unfortunately, we’re stuck waiting again. I’m all for home experimenting, if you know what you’re looking for, but there’s not much to go on here. If they need to be specially formulated for the scalp, I can’t see crushing up the oral medicine, and mixing it with a topical being of much use.

Agreed, but hard not to wonder if the getfitinib or another similar protocol (including the wounding and time-window for topical application) that some guys tried a couple of years ago would work with these drugs if the right mixture could be figured out.

Anyone know what the cause of the baldness was in the mice in these photos?

It very well might work.

But IIRC Gefintib isn’t cheap without an insurance company picking up the check. I think at least one of the guys playing with a few years ago it was taking grapefruit juice at the time just to artificially jack up its effectiveness (liver) to hold down the expense of a steady internal dose for a few weeks.

I’m about ready to declare the UVB sunburn as a necessary component. Swisstemples is using it. The Gefitnib patients both had regrowth in locations/patterns that looked like common sunburn possibilities, and there was no other obvious explanation for what their patterns were. They had not been trying to regrow hair when it happened to them. I haven’t written off dermbrasion working too but I think the evidence is mounting for the role of a UVB burn.

On that note, the Gefitnib patients were probably not re-burning exactly those same areas consistently for months on end. Yet their regrowth looked quite thick & dark. I suspect if we really nailed down this protocol then any sunburning required might only need to happen once or twice.

Follica seemed to have settled on plucking a bunch of hairs (vellus is okay) from the wound area about 2-3 days beforehand. That might help boost results.

Good points. One idea might be for everyone to kick in $100-200 each, and find an experienced PhD pharmacist who could study these compounds’ chemistry, solubility, and absorption profiles and come up with the best topical formulation, vehicle, etc. for a few thousand dollars. The actual mixing of the formulation would be left to the individual volunteer self-testers, or the vendor, so as not to create any potential liability for the pharmacist.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Good points. One idea might be for everyone to kick in $100-200 each, and find an experienced PhD pharmacist who could study these compounds’ chemistry, solubility, and absorption profiles and come up with the best topical formulation, vehicle, etc. for a few thousand dollars. The actual mixing of the formulation would be left to the individual volunteer self-testers, or the vendor, so as not to create any potential liability for the pharmacist.[/quote]

I don’t think you can get a pharmacist in the civilized world to do this.

Also, when I said that science first needs to find out what dose produces the desired effect what I meant was that scientists would use a piece of detached human skin or human skin grafted to mice and apply the topicalized (liquid) version of the drug to it. The scientists would be looking to see what dose effectively blocks the enzymes they’re trying to block, and they would be watching what effect doing so has on the human follicles inside the skin. This would involve biopsies and stuff like that. I’m talking about pre-clinical basic science.

I don’t think you’re going to get a pharmacist in the civilized world to do what you’re suggesting until more basic science is performed with this treatment concept.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Good points. One idea might be for everyone to kick in $100-200 each, and find an experienced PhD pharmacist who could study these compounds’ chemistry, solubility, and absorption profiles and come up with the best topical formulation, vehicle, etc. for a few thousand dollars. The actual mixing of the formulation would be left to the individual volunteer self-testers, or the vendor, so as not to create any potential liability for the pharmacist.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

I don’t think you can get a pharmacist in the civilized world to do this.

Also, when I said that science first needs to find out what dose produces the desired effect what I meant was that scientists would use a piece of detached human skin or human skin grafted to mice and apply the topicalized (liquid) version of the drug to it. The scientists would be looking to see what dose effectively blocks the enzymes they’re trying to block, and they would be watching what effect doing so has on the human follicles inside the skin. This would involve biopsies and stuff like that. I’m talking about pre-clinical basic science.

I don’t think you’re going to get a pharmacist in the civilized world to do what you’re suggesting until more basic science is performed with this treatment concept.[/quote]

Jarjar – I understand what you’re saying. This was just a suggestion for a “quick and dirty” approach to getting this stuff tested as soon as possible, even if the testing is somewhat risky and may not yield results as accurate and reliable as we want. It seems you’re always looking ways we can get things done fast, with minimal waiting and expense, so I just thought I’d throw the idea out there as a suggestion. I totally agree that few pharmacists in the “civilized world” might want to do this, but these days you never know. We could even get someone in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, etc., where people are much less worried about lawsuits, but places that still have some well-trained lab scientists and pharmacists/pharmacologists. Just an idea.

As for your suggestion, yes, I realize that would be the way to go, but again, waiting for someone to do in vitro skin testing, biopsies, etc., will take a long time. I assume Dr. Christiano’s on this, but who knows how long it’ll be before she publicly comes out with some results? 6 months? A year? Who knows? It’s not likely to be very soon, though. She’ll have to get funding squared away, and will likely only announce results in a formal journal article, which will take many months if not more than a year to complete.

Based on the rate of progression of her other research, I estimate it will take her about 5 years to figure out if it works safely on MPB patients. Add in another 10 years of screwing around with the FDA and other entities before it’s released as a cure. (If this seems like a long time to you, keep in mind that all involved will need at least 10 years factored in just to sit around on their fat asses.)

So 15 years for her to accomplish what I could easily accomplish offshore in a year-and-a-half. Of course, the outcome would not be a cure for MPB. It would be another treatment choice that would be viewed as better than Propecia in results but the side affects would be worse.

In order for this stuff to work well, it needs to be manipulated into a form with minimal side effects and maximum efficacy. I could accomplish this offshore in 2.5 years, but it will take the mainstream medical blobs about 25 years to get to the same place. This fits my standard rule that medical red tape adds about 10x to the length of time necessary to come up with new treatments.

JB:

A few questions:

-what side effects would you anticipate?
-how many test subjects?
-any idea of the ballpark costs that would need to be raised?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by ESP2[/postedby]
JB:

A few questions:

-what side effects would you anticipate?
-how many test subjects?
-any idea of the ballpark costs that would need to be raised?[/quote]

We could probably get info about what the stuff is soluble in but how will you figure out what dose (%) you will use? For example, minoxidil is 5%. How will you determine what % you need in order to block the enzymes in the scalp that you want to block?

If it takes them 25 years to develop this treatment, they needn’t worry about the side effects, because by then Sanford-Burnham’s stem cell treatment will (probably) be on the market, and no one’s going to use a topical treatment…