Replicel

[sausage]

They are currently in Phase 2a, does this mean there is a Phase 2b next? how many letters of the alphabet do they go through before getting to Phase 3?

[Mojo Risin]

Originally Posted by sausage

They are currently in Phase 2a, does this mean there is a Phase 2b next? how many letters of the alphabet do they go through before getting to Phase 3?

LOL.

I think Phase 3 is a myth.

[clandestine]

Originally Posted by Mojo Risin

LOL.

I think Phase 3 is a myth.

LOL.

Go away.

[Jamie]

So are we more excited about Replicel or Histogen?

[hairysituation]

Originally Posted by Jamie

So are we more excited about Replicel or Histogen?

The majority are most excited about Replicel, because their treatment is more ideal. It will potenitally regrow DHT-resistant follicles. That means no more balding. But it may not be as helpful to people with NW7, as for people with NW2-3, because a stopper for a balding progression isn't very excited news for a man with no hair.

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by sausage

They are currently in Phase 2a, does this mean there is a Phase 2b next? how many letters of the alphabet do they go through before getting to Phase 3?

It's not uncommon for Phase 2 clinical trials to be divided into Phase 2a and Phase 2b, but I can't recall ever having seen a Phase 2c trial.

[gmonasco]

Originally Posted by lpenergy

According to Replicel's interviews, they are able to stimulate dormant follicles-turn them back "on" to growing plus they are able to grow brand new follicles.

In an interview a couple of months ago, David Hall (CEO of Replicel) said:

The second key interim object is an indication of efficacy at 6 months or specifically, the increase in density of existing hair and indication of new hair follicles.

I'm a little puzzled: If Replicel's treatment resulted in an increased hair count, how would they be able to distinguish between regrowth of existing hairs and the creation of new hairs?

[hairysituation]

I think you can bet on stocks dropping in value and then make a profit of it. If you bet on Replicel's trial results beiing unsuccesful, and ergo considering that the stocks will drop in value, you can make a profit of it. That way you will either make money or have a great hope for the future regarding hairloss. It will be kind of a win-win situation!

[lpenergy]

Originally Posted by gmonasco

In an interview a couple of months ago, David Hall (CEO of Replicel) said:



I'm a little puzzled: If Replicel's treatment resulted in an increased hair count, how would they be able to distinguish between regrowth of existing hairs and the creation of new hairs?

I think that is the question the Spencer should ask in the next interview. In the mice tests, they marked the injected cells with fluoresence I believe so that they were able to distinguish between brand new follicles which all had flourescent markers compared with pre-existing follicles that maybe only had a couple of new dsc cells that were recruited into existing follicles. I guess that is a question whether injected cells were marked in some way? It seems that may not be safe.

[Pate]

Originally Posted by hairysituation

Can you please show where you got the information from about the price? All Replicel has said about the price is that it would be compatable and then some, compared to the hair transplant prices. And why would you have to go there every second year? Can you please explain your reasoning?

The 15k figure came from the stockbroker's report on Replicel that was posted a few pages back. It was the proposed revenue figure for Replicel, which would mean the cost of the procedure would be significantly more expensive because the doctor or clinic that administers it needs to take their cut too.

But I think it was just a plucked-out-of-the-air figure, not based on anything official from Replicel. To be honest the whole valuation thing in that report was pretty lame but broker clients want to see hard numbers, not just potential, so they had to come up with a valuation metric.

The reason for having to go back is because it's likely it will take multiple treatments to achieve full density. Even if they achieve a 100% increase in hair count (which is more than they are looking for), if you have 10% terminal hairs left then you will only have 20% of your original terminal hair density after the procedure.

There's no reason for it to be two years though. Six weeks to three months is the sort of timeframe they are talking about for repeat treatments of Histogen.