Questions about the Fluridil study

Topicals for hair loss
1

I read through the article about the Fluridil study and was a bit confused by some of the data. I was hoping someone could clear things up for me .

(See "Dermatol Surg. 2002 Aug;28(8):678-85, “Fluridil, a rationally designed topical agent for androgenetic alopecia: first clinical experience.” PDF is available here: http://www.hairsite2.com/flu.pdf)

It is mostly interesting to look at the figures from baseline to 3 months. After 3 months, the placebo group was also given Fluridil, because the researchers thought that the evidence for its efficiency was so obvious. I’m not sure I share their point of view…

My questions are:

  1. Is the average increase in anagen hair count percentages in the placebo group 7.12% after 3 months? (An increase from 70.13% to 77.25%)

  2. Is the average increase in anagen hair count percentages in the Fluridil group 9.41% after 3 months? (An increase from 75.68% to 85.09%)

  3. Consequently, is the difference in average anagen hair counts between Fluridil and placebo only 2.29% after 3 months? (9.41% vs 7.12%)

One of the things that made me curious is the statement that there is no statistical difference between the placebo group and the Fluridil group at baseline. Unless I am mistaken the difference is 5.55% in mean anagen hair count percentages (70.13% vs 75.68%). Also the statement that “after 3 months, the average anagen percentage did not change in placebo subjects” seems incorrect. What am I missing?

2

» I read through the article about the Fluridil study and was a bit confused
» by some of the data. I was hoping someone could clear things up for me .
»
» (See "Dermatol Surg. 2002 Aug;28(8):678-85, “Fluridil, a rationally
» designed topical agent for androgenetic alopecia: first clinical
» experience.” PDF is available here:
» http://www.hairsite2.com/flu.pdf)
»
» It is mostly interesting to look at the figures from baseline to 3 months.
» After 3 months, the placebo group was also given Fluridil, because the
» researchers thought that the evidence for its efficiency was so obvious.
» I’m not sure I share their point of view…
»
» My questions are:
»
» 1) Is the average increase in anagen hair count percentages in the placebo
» group 7.12% after 3 months? (An increase from 70.13% to 77.25%)
»
» 2) Is the average increase in anagen hair count percentages in the
» Fluridil group 9.41% after 3 months? (An increase from 75.68% to 85.09%)
»
» 3) Consequently, is the difference in average anagen hair counts between
» Fluridil and placebo only 2.29% after 3 months? (9.41% vs 7.12%)
»
» One of the things that made me curious is the statement that there is no
» statistical difference between the placebo group and the Fluridil group at
» baseline. Unless I am mistaken the difference is 5.55% in mean anagen hair
» count percentages (70.13% vs 75.68%). Also the statement that “after 3
» months, the average anagen percentage did not change in placebo subjects”
» seems incorrect. What am I missing?

My take on this is that if Fluridil is really more effective than topical spiro, then we should hear a lot of success stories by now. I thought the manufactrere were going to do more studies on Fluridil, whatever happened to that?

3

» My take on this is that if Fluridil is really more effective than topical
» spiro, then we should hear a lot of success stories by now. I thought the
» manufactrere were going to do more studies on Fluridil, whatever happened
» to that?

Difficult to say. If I’m correct, their own study concluded it’s marginally effective (2% above placebo after 3 months). But it is very expensive, so I’m guessing not too many people tried it out for extended periods of time, especially on its own.

I think I saw another study on Fluridil, but it was on women, which is potentially a very different case.

4

Anyone?

5

» Anyone?

i used fluridil. i cant say if it really improved my hair, since i was in month 9 or so of minox, so it may have been an effect of minox, too.

i then used it maybe once in 7 days, because i was too lazy. now i dont use it anymore at all and am looking if my hair worsens. yet, its about the same , i think.

i will tell you guys, if it worsens.

6

» » Anyone?
»
» i used fluridil. i cant say if it really improved my hair, since i was in
» month 9 or so of minox, so it may have been an effect of minox, too.
»
» i then used it maybe once in 7 days, because i was too lazy. now i dont
» use it anymore at all and am looking if my hair worsens. yet, its about the
» same , i think.
»
» i will tell you guys, if it worsens.

OK, thanks!

And regarding my initial questions: I went through the data in the study again and found the answers I was looking for. Basically, all the (unimpressive) stats I mentioned above are correct. However, the real mathematical difference mainly lies in the improved sample distibution of the Fluridil group. Basically the SD is lower and given the significance used the claims made in the study are valid. That does not mean that the study is trustworthy from other perspectives, but if I’m not mistaken at least the claims they make are valid from a strictly statistical point of view, given that the data is real.

I’m not overwhelmed by the results, though, and I find it a bit difficult to draw any sensible conclusions from the study.