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

UPENN "Hair growth prevention" clinical trial


#1

http://www.pennmedicine.org/dermatology/hup/clinical.html#5
A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to study the safety and efficacy of a topical medication for the prevention of hair growth in healthy males over a ten week period. Participants who enroll in the research study will receive payment of $25 to $35 per visit for time and travel – up to a total of $215.

Eligible participants:
Men age 18 or older who must shave at least once a day in order to avoid a visible beard.

Principal Investigator: Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE

For more information, please contact:
Katrina Abuabara
215-746-6364
abuabark AT uphs.upenn.edu

FYI Dr. Cotsarelis is the Director of the Hair and Scalp Clinic at UPENN


#2

Ahhh, thats great, rev, so it seems that Mr. Cotsarellis, after so many years of research, instead of giving us new hair, he has got a way to prevent our remaining hair grom growing. thats pretty smart and funny.

Is this a joke or something?:confused:

» http://www.pennmedicine.org/dermatology/hup/clinical.html#5
» A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to study the safety and
» efficacy of a topical medication for the prevention of hair growth in
» healthy males over a ten week period. Participants who enroll in the
» research study will receive payment of $25 to $35 per visit for time and
» travel – up to a total of $215.
»
» Eligible participants:
» Men age 18 or older who must shave at least once a day in order to avoid a
» visible beard.
»
» Principal Investigator: Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE
»
»
» For more information, please contact:
» Katrina Abuabara
» 215-746-6364
» abuabark AT uphs.upenn.edu
»
» FYI Dr. Cotsarelis is the Director of the Hair and Scalp Clinic at
» UPENN


#3

» Ahhh, thats great, rev, so it seems that Mr. Cotsarellis, after so many
» years of research, instead of giving us new hair, he has got a way to
» prevent our remaining hair grom growing. thats pretty smart and funny.
»
» Is this a joke or something?:confused:
»

What’s the point? Laser hair removal is already an effective hair removal treatment; there’s even a laser hair removal tool available for purchase by the home consumer.

I’m glad to see that something coming out of Penn having to do with hair is going to human trials, because Follica sure isn’t.


#4

My beard is very strong. I woldn’t mind to soften it a bit because I have difficulties to shave it. But I don’t think I would use any drug for that effect. The risk of sides outweights the benefits.

And I think there are already products in the market to weaken the growth of hair. I think women use in their legs. Hair takes longer to grow back.

» » Ahhh, thats great, rev, so it seems that Mr. Cotsarellis, after so many
» » years of research, instead of giving us new hair, he has got a way to
» » prevent our remaining hair grom growing. thats pretty smart and funny.
» »
» » Is this a joke or something?:confused:
» »
»
» What’s the point? Laser hair removal is already an effective hair removal
» treatment; there’s even a laser hair removal tool available for purchase by
» the home consumer.
»
» I’m glad to see that something coming out of Penn having to do with hair
» is going to human trials, because Follica sure isn’t.


#5

» My beard is very strong. I woldn’t mind to soften it a bit because I have
» difficulties to shave it. But I don’t think I would use any drug for that
» effect. The risk of sides outweights the benefits.
»
» And I think there are already products in the market to weaken the growth
» of hair. I think women use in their legs. Hair takes longer to grow back.
»
»
» » » Ahhh, thats great, rev, so it seems that Mr. Cotsarellis, after so
» many
» » » years of research, instead of giving us new hair, he has got a way to
» » » prevent our remaining hair grom growing. thats pretty smart and funny.
»
» » »
» » » Is this a joke or something?:confused:
» » »
» »
» » What’s the point? Laser hair removal is already an effective hair
» removal
» » treatment; there’s even a laser hair removal tool available for purchase
» by
» » the home consumer.
» »
» » I’m glad to see that something coming out of Penn having to do with
» hair
» » is going to human trials, because Follica sure isn’t.

men with excessive body hair and unwanted body hair will look forward to such an application. I for one would purchase it if it turned otu legit. Laser is super expensive. I had a buddy in the states spend $6k on approx 9 sessions total, and now 2 yrs later he’s growing some hair back.

If someonething even slows down the regrowth for months, I’m all for it. it’s a pain in the @ss to constantly use nair or shave your buddy. They both make it worse. I tried waxing… I was bleeding profusely to the point the lady stopped halfway and quit.


#6

I’m not sure what this means quite frankly. This trial’s only interesting if it ties-in somehow to Follica’s research, and Dr Cotsarelis’ statements that hair could be stimulated similarly to the way it could be prevented.

But who knows.

» Is this a joke or something?:confused:


#7

» I’m not sure what this means quite frankly. This trial’s only interesting
» if it ties-in somehow to Follica’s research, and Dr Cotsarelis’ statements
» that hair could be stimulated similarly to the way it could be prevented.
»
» But who knows.

yes, I understand that you have hinted some connection with the Follica project. Maybe both are using the same principles.
Inhibiting hair growth is far easier than creating new follicles, so I see little merit on these trials.
And if Cotsarellis is spending time and money in this hair-inhibition trial, while the Follica trials have not even started, this would be very bad news. This would mean that the Follica formula is not working and Cotsarellis is trying to squeeze something useful (inhibition) out of the technology involved.

If Follica was working, I don’t think Cotsarellis was spending time and money on inhibition trials. He would be focused on the Follica trials. He has been researching all his life into hair regrowth, and his enthusiasm would be on regrowing hair, not inhibiting it.

Lets hope I am wrong.

p.d.: another explanation is that the Follica trials are more complex and they need more preparation. In the meantime they are doing these inhibition trials because they are simpler.

»
» » Is this a joke or something?:confused:


#8

I wish they would focus on one research (ie grow hair) before they branch out to something else, this doesn’t sit well with me, it looks like they dabbled in hair regorwth study, now got bored with hair regrowth so they put hair regrowth aside and decided to have fun preventing hair growth.


#9

WTF is Cotsarelis problem? Will he ever be forced to give some explination on Follica or will he hide in the shadows forever? Were not seeing more possibilities of hm were seeing more s.c.a.m. artist use the concept of hm as a tool to make money.


#10

» WTF is Cotsarelis problem? Will he ever be forced to give some explination
» on Follica or will he hide in the shadows forever? Were not seeing more
» possibilities of hm were seeing more s.c.a.m. artist use the concept of hm
» as a tool to make money.

Cotsarelis is not the only guy working in UPENN. There are other poeple as well.
Moreover Follica is a pvt company and have only taken taken the technology from UPENN. UPENN will have hundereds of projects and just because one has been brought by a pvt company does not means that the university should stop its other research project.


#11

UPENN is a world class University with world class reserach in dermatology, etc. It is very credible and scientifically honest. We should hope they study hair growth—we may all eventually benefit!


#12

yes. after 3 years of the announcement of costsarellis here we are, waiting to start tests of as not to grow hair. (INCREDIBLE)


#13

Hi All,
The only way this would make sens. Is if HM works, it may not work well enough near the hairline. (this was briefly mentioned during Intercytex Hype, when they referred the use of HT for hairline).

With this technique, Follica can sculpt/trace/define hair line after any type of hair re-growth created by either Aderans/Trichoscience/Follica, by removing runaway hairs.

My theory is that, only if HM works, the next question will be how to assure natural hairline with out the use of hair transplant or surgeon.

My 2 cents


#14

I don’t see why a HT surgeon creating the hairline would be a big problem. The hairlines mainly look fake because of thick donor-area hair shafts, not enough grafts, and unnatural-looking patterns throughout the head that make people question the hairline in the first place. All three of these issues would be totally fixable with unlimited donor supplies.


#15

» I don’t see why a HT surgeon creating the hairline would be a big problem.
» The hairlines mainly look fake because of thick donor-area hair shafts, not
» enough grafts, and unnatural-looking patterns throughout the head that make
» people question the hairline in the first place. All three of these issues
» would be totally fixable with unlimited donor supplies.

Hi Cal,
I understand your point that HT surgeon can define Hair Line. I am just figuring out an application of the UPENN “HGP” clinical trial. And the only reason, i can see, is for defining hair line without HT surgery.

I think it is a useful/great experience.

Personally, i think HM would sell better without HT frightening intervention.

Best Regards,


#16

» Hi All,
» The only way this would make sens. Is if HM works, it may not work well
» enough near the hairline. (this was briefly mentioned during Intercytex
» Hype, when they referred the use of HT for hairline).
»
» With this technique, Follica can sculpt/trace/define hair line after any
» type of hair re-growth created by either Aderans/Trichoscience/Follica, by
» removing runaway hairs.
»
» My theory is that, only if HM works, the next question will be how to
» assure natural hairline with out the use of hair transplant or surgeon.
»
» My 2 cents

If Follica works, it should work anywhere. Or, if it does follow the blue-print of hair-growth as dictated by sections of your skin (the reason you don’t have patches of hair on your forehead).

This is arguably more in line with my thoughts on rejuvenation, which - if all goes well - is really a non-issue with Follica, as the hair gained (new or awoken) won’t be inherently DHT-immune. It’s a non-issue in terms of differentiating between the two I mean (in most cases, provided you can rejuvenated most, or all your hair).

Removing hair will, as others have said, probably not be used at the hairline. Creating a good hairline should take very little actual hair, and large doses of artistry. Creating a great fade-line in a drawing requires very little ink/paint/graphite, but a great deal of attention to detail.

Hair-removal, as it seems to work in this case would most likely eliminate all hair, and make for a sharp line, when what you’re really looking for is careful imperfections.

Anyone can draw a sharp line, which is why a lot of hairlines end up looking cartoonish. People with great adult hairlines usually have anything but completely straight lines.

This is basically a complete reverse of the technique laid out by Follica for hair-growth, and was also present in their original document 2-3 years ago, so it’s not surprising at all - to me - that they’re moving in on it. Removing is indeed easier than creating, and since the procedure in itself is fairly straight-forward, they’re well off with doing this concurrently.

If I remember correctly, it works by suppressing WnT at the “window-of-opportunity” while encouraging skin-formation, as opposed to boosting WnT and discouraging skin-formation. It could be that you only need to suppress WnT, which makes the procedure even easier to do.

Don’t forget that this hair-business is very close to growing organs, so making things “not work” is obviously easier.

Going through FDA and whatnot still takes shy off ten years, and if the growth doesn’t fall through, they’re most likely hoping the removal-procedure can be worthwhile. People on this forum are immensely interested in one, but not the other, but the reversal could be found on other parts of the net, so I think there’s cause for perspective.

I really don’t think anyone should read too much into this; especially not regarding their growth-trials which - as should be stressed - we know almost nothing about. That’s also very important to keep in mind.

“Failure” to provide proof of efficiency is not proof of lack of efficiency. Nobody owes anyone here anything, and keeping silent has all kinds of financial benefits, and can - in some way - actually be a sign that things are working alright.

Remember that Intercytex went up in flames shortly after being unsually vocal.

When any of the three-four companies we check up on here start talking too much, I get nervous. Not when they keep to themselves.