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

MDF topical from Samson Therapeutics


#1

MDF is a new topical treatment for hair loss, composed of the highest doses available of minoxidil, dutasteride and flutamide in a convenient, single-bottle formulation. Easy, once-a-day dosing. No worry about whether ingredients are genuine (all 3 agents are submitted to U.S. analytic lab testing for content, dose and stability). See samsontherapeutics.com for more info.


#2

» MDF is a new topical treatment for hair loss, composed of the highest doses
» available of minoxidil, dutasteride and flutamide in a convenient,
» single-bottle formulation. Easy, once-a-day dosing. No worry about
» whether ingredients are genuine (all 3 agents are submitted to U.S.
» analytic lab testing for content, dose and stability). See
» samsontherapeutics.com for more info.

how much does it cost? you have before and after pics? what concentration is minox, dutas and flutamide?


#3

Seems like a huge hassle just to get minoxidil and a couple of unproven DHT inhibitors. What’s more, I’ll bet that it is outrageously expensive.


#4

» Seems like a huge hassle just to get minoxidil and a couple of unproven DHT
» inhibitors. What’s more, I’ll bet that it is outrageously expensive.

topical dutasteride and topical flutamide are systemically absorbed, and have never been shown to be otherwise…

there is a new “flutagel” out that supposedly suspends flutamide in the dermis, but flutamide is supposed to have to be processed in the bod to become hyrdroxyflutamide to really work effectively.

I dont see how this topical would be any different from taking dutasteride and flutamide internally…there would probably be some real side effects with this that a man would not want at all


#5

» Seems like a huge hassle just to get minoxidil and a couple of unproven DHT
» inhibitors. What’s more, I’ll bet that it is outrageously expensive.

I agree, also there are countless dht inhibitors and antiandrogens on the market, it s safe to say that using anti dht products alone is not enough otherwise all of us would have regrown all our hair back already. There’s gotta be more to it than DHT alone. DHT is old school.


#6

Price is 240$ for 3 months.


#7

It’s true that there’s tons of topical DHT inhibitors on the market but they pretty much all suck.

This one is too systemic, that one is too badly absorbed to work, the next one stinks like hippopatamus ass, the one after that can’t even be bought in a consistent stable product form, etc.


#8

» Seems like a huge hassle just to get minoxidil and a couple of unproven DHT
» inhibitors. What’s more, I’ll bet that it is outrageously expensive.

MDF is specfically formulated to take advantage of the most potent DHT inhibitor (dutasteride) and the most potent DHT blocker (flutamide). To say that they are “unproven” means that you have ignored the medical literature for the past 25 years (in the case of flutamide) and 12 years (in the case of dutasteride). The minoxidil is provided at a dose (15%) that makes it possible to avoid commonly used absorption enchancers which are really the cause of most patients’ complaints.

RonLev
Samson Therapeutics


#9

Unproven TOPICALLY, Ron. Please cite the studies you are referring to.


#10

» MDF is specfically formulated to take advantage of the most potent DHT
» inhibitor (dutasteride) and the most potent DHT blocker (flutamide).
» To say that they are “unproven” means that you have ignored the medical
» literature for the past 25 years (in the case of flutamide) and 12 years
» (in the case of dutasteride).

As far as I know, there is not so much as even a SINGLE report in the medical literature of dutasteride being used topically. Furthermore, even after some 25 years, the experience with topical flutamide in humans has also been extremely sparse, with (to my knowledge) only a couple of published studies on that. Even worse, the studies with topical flutamide in animals have shown very serious problems with systemic absorption of the drug. Are you and your company aware of all that, and are you prepared for the posssible legal consequences that may well occur from the use of your product by your trusting customers?

.


#11

» » MDF is specfically formulated to take advantage of the most potent DHT
» » inhibitor (dutasteride) and the most potent DHT blocker (flutamide).
» » To say that they are “unproven” means that you have ignored the medical
» » literature for the past 25 years (in the case of flutamide) and 12
» years
» » (in the case of dutasteride).
»
» As far as I know, there is not so much as even a SINGLE report in the
» medical literature of dutasteride being used topically. Furthermore, even
» after some 25 years, the experience with topical flutamide in humans has
» also been extremely sparse, with (to my knowledge) only a couple of
» published studies on that. Even worse, the studies with topical flutamide
» in animals have shown very serious problems with systemic absorption of the
» drug. Are you and your company aware of all that, and are you prepared for
» the posssible legal consequences that may well occur from the use of your
» product by your trusting customers?
»
»

Bryan- I believe Goingallout has posted about his progress with using Dut topically. However, he is the only one I’ve seen on this forum that is currently using it. I am thinking of going that route as well, as I’m hoping the side effects will be less than taking orally. What do you think? .


#12

I was able to find out one study regarding topical flutamide (an old study though)
Analysis of 0-120 hr urine shows at least 16% of the applied flutamide is absorbed.

J Invest Dermatol. 1976 Jun;66(6):379-82

Percutaneous penetration and metabolism of topical (14C)flutamide in men

This study was designed to determine the fate of the nonsteroid antiandrogen flutamide in men following a single 6-hr topical application of 5 mg 14C-labeled drug dissolved in 50% ethanol/50% propylene glycol.

Analysis of 0-120 hr urine shows at least 16% of the applied flutamide is absorbed. Fifty-six percent of the dose is recovered from the site of application with cotton swabs moistened with 50% ethanol/50% propylene glycol.

Flutamide plasma levels peak in 4 to 6 hr at about 1.3 ng/ml and then decline rapidly to about 0.08 ng/ml 24 hr after application. Only 13% of plasma 14C is associated with flutamide 6 hr after drug application.

There are at least 10 plasma metabolites, of which 6 have been tentatively identified. These are alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-4’-amino-m-acetotoluidide (A); alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-4’-amino-2-methyl-m-lactotoluidide (B); alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-4’-nitro-m-acetotoluidide ©; alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-2-methyl-4’-nitro-m-lactotoluidide (D); alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-4’-amino-2-methyl-m-propionotoluidide (E); and alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-6-nitro-m-toluidine (F).

(D) is the major plasma metabolite, and its concentration exceeds flutamide’s between 8 and 24 hr after drug. All the plasma metabolites are found in 0-24 hr urine in minor amounts. An additional metabolite, alpha, alpha, alpha-trifluoro-amino-5-nitro-p-cresol (G), accounts for 27% of urine 14C.


#13

» I was able to find out one study regarding topical flutamide
» (an old study though)
» Analysis of 0-120 hr urine shows at least 16% of the applied flutamide
» is absorbed.

»
» J Invest Dermatol. 1976 Jun;66(6):379-82
»
» Percutaneous penetration and metabolism of topical (14C)flutamide in
» men

Yep. That’s one of the two! :wink:

.


#14

» » MDF is specfically formulated to take advantage of the most potent DHT
» » inhibitor (dutasteride) and the most potent DHT blocker (flutamide).
» » To say that they are “unproven” means that you have ignored the medical
» » literature for the past 25 years (in the case of flutamide) and 12
» years
» » (in the case of dutasteride).
»
» As far as I know, there is not so much as even a SINGLE report in the
» medical literature of dutasteride being used topically. Furthermore, even
» after some 25 years, the experience with topical flutamide in humans has
» also been extremely sparse, with (to my knowledge) only a couple of
» published studies on that. Even worse, the studies with topical flutamide
» in animals have shown very serious problems with systemic absorption of the
» drug. Are you and your company aware of all that, and are you prepared for
» the posssible legal consequences that may well occur from the use of your
» product by your trusting customers?
»
»

It is well known that flutamide has a relatively high rate of percutaneous absorption (16% in the study you are undoubtedly referring to, Katchen, 1976), but those studies were using the dosage level for oncologic indications (pro-rated in animal models from a base of 750 mg in humans). In subsequent years, investigators have titrated the dose downward to determine its safe level for nononcologic use. These series of studies were conducted by Muderris in 1999 and 2000, who found that using levels <250 mg were entirely safe (we use the very lowest dose Muderris found that was still effective at 62.5 mg and created the topical equivalent, which results in a systemic absorption of only 10.3 mg–far below the level that produces any systemic effect).

RonLev


#15

Okay, Ronnie. Now that we have those unpleasantries out of the way, do tell us where it says that either Flutamide or Dutasteride are effective TOPICALLY at treating HAIR LOSS. Get it now? I don’t give two sh*ts about how effectively it is absorbed through the skin. A lot of things are absorbed very well through the skin and don’t do squat for hair loss. Tell us how your prescription-only, $200/month concoction works for hair loss. Seems to me that you have an overly-expensive minoxidil product. By the way, how DID you get 15% minoxidil into solution? Minoxidil does not work all that well when it just “sits” (in crystalline form) on the top of the skin;-)


#16

» Okay, Ronnie. Now that we have those unpleasantries out of the way, do tell
» us where it says that either Flutamide or Dutasteride are effective
» TOPICALLY at treating HAIR LOSS. Get it now? I don’t give two sh*ts about
» how effectively it is absorbed through the skin. A lot of things are
» absorbed very well through the skin and don’t do squat for hair loss. Tell
» us how your prescription-only, $200/month concoction works for hair loss.
» Seems to me that you have an overly-expensive minoxidil product. By the
» way, how DID you get 15% minoxidil into solution? Minoxidil does not work
» all that well when it just “sits” (in crystalline form) on the top of the
» skin;-)

It seems that you are “loaded for bear”, but I’ll take the bait, anyway.

First, it is standard practice for dermatologists to prescribe compounded topical versions of drugs that are normally only available for oral use for a large variety of disorders. This is because most medical studies (and virtually all clinical trials) are funded by pharma companies, and the pharma industry does not consider topical doseforms (particularly for chronic disorders) to have a sufficiently large market to invest in. Therefore, we relied on our clinical consultants to provide topical alternatives for oral antiandrogens and anti-reductase blockers as they would in their normal practice.

Second, if you took the time to visit our website, you would see that $240 buys you 3 months of medication, not 1 month, and pro-rating this on a daily basis ($2.61) is relatively cost-effective considering the number and amount of medications you are getting.

Third, “How did we get 15% in solution”, well that took almost 2 years of development and delayed our launch until our analytic labs gave us absolute assurance that it would remain stable and suitable for absorption. (You might notice that some less ethical compounders would charge about the same amount for their high-dose minox and you would find that the minoxidil would precipitate out of solution exactly as you describe!)

RonLev


#17

» » Okay, Ronnie. Now that we have those unpleasantries out of the way, do
» tell
» » us where it says that either Flutamide or Dutasteride are effective
» » TOPICALLY at treating HAIR LOSS. Get it now? I don’t give two sh*ts
» about
» » how effectively it is absorbed through the skin. A lot of things are
» » absorbed very well through the skin and don’t do squat for hair loss.
» Tell
» » us how your prescription-only, $200/month concoction works for hair
» loss.
» » Seems to me that you have an overly-expensive minoxidil product. By the
» » way, how DID you get 15% minoxidil into solution? Minoxidil does not
» work
» » all that well when it just “sits” (in crystalline form) on the top of
» the
» » skin;-)
»
» It seems that you are “loaded for bear”, but I’ll take the bait, anyway.
»
»
» First, it is standard practice for dermatologists to prescribe compounded
» topical versions of drugs that are normally only available for oral use for
» a large variety of disorders. This is because most medical studies (and
» virtually all clinical trials) are funded by pharma companies, and the
» pharma industry does not consider topical doseforms (particularly for
» chronic disorders) to have a sufficiently large market to invest in.
» Therefore, we relied on our clinical consultants to provide topical
» alternatives for oral antiandrogens and anti-reductase blockers as they
» would in their normal practice.
»
» Second, if you took the time to visit our website, you would see that $240
» buys you 3 months of medication, not 1 month, and pro-rating this on a
» daily basis ($2.61) is relatively cost-effective considering the number and
» amount of medications you are getting.
»
» Third, “How did we get 15% in solution”, well that took almost 2 years of
» development and delayed our launch until our analytic labs gave us absolute
» assurance that it would remain stable and suitable for absorption. (You
» might notice that some less ethical compounders would charge about the same
» amount for their high-dose minox and you would find that the minoxidil
» would precipitate out of solution exactly as you describe!)
»
» RonLev

Hmm… somehow i don’t find anything convincing in this topical… you got real life trial result with photos?


#18

» » Even worse, the studies with topical flutamide
» » in animals have shown very serious problems with
» » systemic absorption of the drug.
»
» It is well known that flutamide has a relatively high rate of percutaneous
» absorption (16% in the study you are undoubtedly referring to, Katchen,
» 1976), but those studies were using the dosage level for oncologic
» indications (pro-rated in animal models from a base of 750 mg in humans).
» In subsequent years, investigators have titrated the dose downward to
» determine its safe level for nononcologic use. These series of studies
» were conducted by Muderris in 1999 and 2000, who found that using levels
» <250 mg were entirely safe (we use the very lowest dose Muderris found that
» was still effective at 62.5 mg and created the topical equivalent, which
» results in a systemic absorption of only 10.3 mg–far below the level that
» produces any systemic effect).

I’m pleased to know that the ABSOLUTE quantity of absorbed flutamide from a typical application/dose of your product is probably low enough not to present any obvious toxic symptoms, but nevertheless I was mainly referring in my post above to the animal studies(1,2) showing that topically-applied flutamide works entirely by SYSTEMIC absorption. In other words, I’m not aware of any scientific studies showing a “local” effect of topical flutamide except for that one Sintov study, and I don’t consider that one to be entirely persuasive. Do you and your company realize that what you’re doing is putting out a VERY expensive product which uses a potentially VERY toxic drug which is based on exactly ONE rather questionable animal experiment claiming a certain degree of “local” efficacy?

  1. “Local and systemic reduction by topical finasteride or flutamide of hamster flank organ size and enzyme activity.” J Invest Dermatol 1995 Nov;105(5):678-82.

  2. “The effects of a nonsteroid antiandrogen, flutamide, on sebaceous gland activity”. J Invest Dermatol 64:412-417, 1975.


#19

» Second, if you took the time to visit our website, you would see that $240
» buys you 3 months of medication, not 1 month, and pro-rating this on a
» daily basis ($2.61) is relatively cost-effective considering the number and
» amount of medications you are getting.

One could say the same thing about prescription Proxiphen: at a cost of $100 a month, it’s even a little more expensive than YOUR product, although it also contains a larger number of individual medications (about a dozen or so, I believe). It also has the advantage of being used, and its effects observed, for a VASTLY longer period of time, like on the order of the last 20 years or so! :slight_smile:

» Third, “How did we get 15% in solution”, well that took almost 2 years of
» development and delayed our launch until our analytic labs gave us absolute
» assurance that it would remain stable and suitable for absorption. (You
» might notice that some less ethical compounders would charge about the same
» amount for their high-dose minox and you would find that the minoxidil
» would precipitate out of solution exactly as you describe!)

So what vehicle are you using that supposedly dissolves minoxidil to a concentration of 15%? Is it glycerin, like that other unnamed product? :stuck_out_tongue:

.


#20

» » » Even worse, the studies with topical flutamide
» » » in animals have shown very serious problems with
» » » systemic absorption of the drug.
» »
» » It is well known that flutamide has a relatively high rate of
» percutaneous
» » absorption (16% in the study you are undoubtedly referring to, Katchen,
» » 1976), but those studies were using the dosage level for oncologic
» » indications (pro-rated in animal models from a base of 750 mg in
» humans).
» » In subsequent years, investigators have titrated the dose downward to
» » determine its safe level for nononcologic use. These series of studies
» » were conducted by Muderris in 1999 and 2000, who found that using
» levels
» » <250 mg were entirely safe (we use the very lowest dose Muderris found
» that
» » was still effective at 62.5 mg and created the topical equivalent,
» which
» » results in a systemic absorption of only 10.3 mg–far below the level
» that
» » produces any systemic effect).
»
» I’m pleased to know that the ABSOLUTE quantity of absorbed flutamide from
» a typical application/dose of your product is probably low enough not to
» present any obvious toxic symptoms, but nevertheless I was mainly
» referring in my post above to the animal studies(1,2) showing that
» topically-applied flutamide works entirely by SYSTEMIC absorption. In
» other words, I’m not aware of any scientific studies showing a “local”
» effect of topical flutamide except for that one Sintov study, and I don’t
» consider that one to be entirely persuasive. Do you and your company
» realize that what you’re doing is putting out a VERY expensive product
» which uses a potentially VERY toxic drug which is based on exactly ONE
» rather questionable animal experiment claiming a certain degree of “local”
» efficacy?
»
» 1) “Local and systemic reduction by topical finasteride or flutamide of
» hamster flank organ size and enzyme activity.” J Invest Dermatol 1995
» Nov;105(5):678-82.
»
» 2) “The effects of a nonsteroid antiandrogen, flutamide, on sebaceous
» gland activity”. J Invest Dermatol 64:412-417, 1975.

Bryan,

I appreciate your “dedication” to questioning us on a holiday! Let me answer your assertions directly,

  1. “VERY EXPENSIVE”. As I noted earlier, we are providing 3 potent agents at a per-day price of $1.61, a cost that is well within the normal market range of such products. I should mention that the raw-materials cost of most drugs constitute a very small portion of their cost to the patient. For big pharma, much of the cost is invested in marketing. The bulk of our cost is sunk into the vehicle development, our ongoing quality controls and the cost of custom compounding each Rx individually by a skilled pharmacy technician. That is why the price of the 1-month size of MDF is not much lower than the price of the 3-month size—most of the cost is fixed, there is little variable cost by volume in our operation.

  2. You seem to have contradictory views about effectiveness. You (correctly) state that flutamide has shown a systemic effect, but then you assert that no local effect can be assumed without clinical studies. However, normal pharmacokinetic partitioning requires a drug to traverse the dermis (where the hair follicles reside) and cumulate a significant concentration there before it can pass into the systemic circulation. Therefore, a drug that demonstrates a systemic effect MUST have a local effect, if there are susceptible receptors there. As I mentioned earlier, pharma companies are not interested in pursuing topical studies, so dermatologists have traditionally adapted many products for topical use on the basis of the oral and systemic pharmacology that is available.

  3. “VERY TOXIC” (?) As a result of titration studies throughout the past 9 years, the safety of flutamide has been well established, and doses up to 250 mg qd have been used ORALLY (where the systemic absorption is nearly 100%) in women with hair growth disorders by dermatologists with no ill effects. By contrast, we are using 62.5 mg topically in men (where the systemic absorption is 16%) yielding a systemic exposure of only 10.3 mg.

RonLev