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

Rogr, if anti-androgens treat baldness upstream/downstream from growth factors


#1

wouldn’t that mean that any growth factor treatment for hair loss
would have to be applied permanently the same as anti-androgen therapy has
to be applied permanently? I mean, if anti-androgen therapy AND growth factor
therapy are both on the same pathway, and if one of them has to be applied
permanently, then doesn’t that mean both of them have to be applied
permanently?

If this is the case then I think this doesn’t bode well for the experimental
drug SM05545 because they are only applying the drug to the heads of
subjects for 90 days. 90 days doesn’t seem long enough to evaluate if the
drug works or not.

If it does work then it should be available in 1 1/2 to 2 years.


#2

If I understand your question correctly, my answer is I think it’s obvious and always has been, that growth factors (if they work) would have to be applied forever.

Even with something like Histogen’s HSC. It’s thought to have the ability to stimulate dormant follicles and possibly induce some new ones to grow. Any new follicles it induced would start withering away under the influence of androgens once you stop applying the HSC. Any improvement seen at all would be reversed after the HSC treatment is stopped.


#3

Actually I was trying to make a scientific point rather than an
intuitive point. Let me try to re-state it:

  1. If two different treatments work via the same stream

  2. and one of them needs to be applied permanently

  3. Doesn’t that mean that the other treatment also has to be applied
    permanently?


#4

The fundamental reason all topicals, chemicals and injections that grow hair in the balding areas must be applied permanently is that the cell lines of the balding areas are genetically programmed for baldness. These drugs and chemicals are just working on those flawed cell lines. Their genetics can’t be permanently altered just by putting a chemical on them. Once you stop applying the chemical, these cell lines will ALWAYS revert back to their programmed genetic and physiological baseline, which is MPB. The only way that could be changed is with gene therapy, something which is maybe 20-30 years away.

Whereas, the various forms of HM, tissue engineering and stem cell therapy all use cell lines which are NOT genetically programmed to bald, so if you use these, and they work, problem solved. No need to apply something permanently.


#5

What Roger said.

Our hair isn’t growing because our follicles have genetically stopped making things they need. We can either dump the missing stuff onto our scalps constantly, forever, or we can rework the genetics by moving donor-area cells into there.

No amount of messing around with non-cellular stimulants will ever do us any good for more than a short time.

The only possible exception I see to this is wounding-based regrowth schemes (with assistance from something recently man-made).

The body can do some things during healing that it won’t do in normal maintenance mode. Its a possibility and it has happened by accident a couple times. But so far nobody has been able to crack it.


#6

Since a growth factor treatment would have to be applied permanently can you imagine any possible reason why SM04554 would only be applied for 3 months in clinical trials?

I mean even minoxidil was applied for much longer during trials.

It seems to me that since it takes about 4 - 6 months to see new hair growth during treatment the researchers won’t even have time to see if SM04554 is starting to work since they are only having the subjects use the treatment for 3 months. I don’t get it. Even if it’s working after 3 months the only signs it’s working would likely be under the skin, and it’s really doubtful that the subjects would have visible hairs sticking up after 3 months. So it seems to me that there is the danger that their product might actually work, but the subjects won’t have been on it long enough for that to be visibly determined so the company will mistakenly conclude that it doesn’t work and kill the project after phase 2 results.


#7

It could be because these are just proof of concept trials and they want to do them quickly and not spend much. Maybe they’re thinking that if it works at all, they’re likely to see growth by about 3 months of use, and going beyond that might be just spending unnecessary money at this point. If it looks promising, they could always extend the trials or do longer ones. Another reason might be that they’re concerned about toxicity from chronic use, and aren’t so big on admitting that publicly. It might be they’d rather just score a quick success and kick the toxicity can down the road.


#8

The famed dermatologist Wilma Bergfeld is on the team. This makes it that much harder to understand the 3-month use of treatment in the study. She’s listed in every global top-10 list of dermatologists I’ve ever seen. I guarantee that she understands all of the details and issues involved.


#9

Well, I don’t mean to sound negative but we’re dealing with the wnt pathway here… There is so much that’s not known about this pathway, but one thing that’s known is that it’s involved with cancer. If anyone is able to spot a precancerous skin lesion early on it would be her. So maybe that’s why she was brought on board? Just speculating…


#10

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Well, I don’t mean to sound negative but we’re dealing with the wnt pathway here… There is so much that’s not known about this pathway, but one thing that’s known is that it’s involved with cancer. If anyone is able to spot a precancerous skin lesion early on it would be her. So maybe that’s why she was brought on board? Just speculating…[/quote]

Ok so maybe one of the reasons they brought her on board was because she would spot any sign of skin cancer, but that isn’t my point. My point is that it seems like the research team is making a HUGE mistake if they expect to see discernible regrowth within 3 months but I guarantee that Wilma Bergfeld is aware that it typically takes 4 - 6 months for new hair to materialize. She was on board for all of the rogaine studies and all of the propecia studies, as well as virtually every other major hair loss clinical trial that has taken place. She is so highly ranked that she is actually the co-chair at the 2015 hair loss congress, with Angela Christiano no less as the other co-chair. She’s actually on that level - the level of Angela Christiano - and she definitely knows that 3 months is not typically long enough to determine if a medicine is growing hair or not.

http://www.registration123.com/NAHRS/HAIR2015/CongressInformation.cfm

And then there’s the fact that I think they’re only letting NW 4, 5, and 6 into the studies and of course it would take longer to regrow hair in people with these later stages of hair loss, and it would be harder to regrow hair in these late stage baldness cases.

I have to tell you that I’m scratching my head about this situation.


#11

Well, for new hairs to sprout from bare skin, maybe it takes 4 months, but it wouldn’t take 4 months for them to see whether this stuff could thicken or elongate small vellous hairs, so maybe that’s what they’re focusing on in this trial.


#12

So then they don’t care if it grows new hair or not. Doesn’t that sound ludicrous?


#13

You’re still thinking about hair and not cancer.

Maybe they are employing a real pro and only starting with 3 months just to make sure it isn’t a HUGE cancer problem.

They would not get in legal trouble for hurting trialists but it would be bad for the company if that got around.


#14

By the way, the company behind SM05445 is Sammumed and they’re one of the big sponsors of the 2015 WHRC.

http://www.hair2015.org/

I don’t think that this necessarily means that they’re product works but it’s certainly interesting.