Sm04554

[rdawg]

I think you interpreted the results incorrectly, the 0.15% solution had better results than the 0.25% solution, so a higher dose according to their results does not mean better efficacy. Also their results don't know the number of responders and non responders, so we don't know what it's % effectiveness is.

I get people want to see this in a positive light, but unless it has a high effectiveness rate for the results they posted and/or the results continue to improve over time, I think we can scratch this off as another failure compared to finasteride/RU/DUT/ and minox.

How is a drug that shows clear efficacy after 3 months a failure compared to drugs that can take up to a year to show even minimal changes?

You can't scratch this off at all, it's shown initial results, now we just have to see if those results continue. You do make a good point that they didn't show the % that this had an effect on but they may very well do that next month when they show their other trials results.

[Spaniards]

Are they going to give up or what? Donīt we have to wait at least until April?

What do you say? Not very good at chemistry, but it seems some of you are so please enlight me! Thank u guys!

[beetee]

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/...samumed&rank=3

it's also mentioned in some articles about them/on their website, but apparently it didn't occur to you to look anywhere.

It's not too hard to post a link or two. Thank you for doing so.

[20legend]

We should try to contact Samumed and get some additional info. Maybe they could tell us why there were so optimistic about just 10% increase in hair counts. There might be something more to it.

Hellouser had spoken to them at the conference. So maybe he might be able to send a short email.

[20legend]

We should try to contact Samumed and get some additional info. Maybe they could tell us why there were so optimistic about just 10% increase in hair counts. There might be something more to it.

Hellouser had spoken to them at the conference. So maybe he might be able to send a short email.

[Haircure]

How is a drug that shows clear efficacy after 3 months a failure compared to drugs that can take up to a year to show even minimal changes?

You can't scratch this off at all, it's shown initial results, now we just have to see if those results continue. You do make a good point that they didn't show the % that this had an effect on but they may very well do that next month when they show their other trials results.

You speak of efficacy, which in definition is how effective this drug is in doing what it claims to. The results speak for themselves, a 10% increase in 3 months at best is not efficacious compared to the other treatments out there. Look at finasteride and DUT for example, there is a wide spectrum of results for those drugs ranging from no effect (which is very rare) to practically a full recovery of all lost hair, and not to mention maintenance for up to decades of use or more.

Yes, I agree that 3 months is not a lot of time to see full results, but even in those 3 months there have been numerous cases of people using finasteride/dut and minox which show a much better result. So I stand by what I said earlier, compared to our current treatments, SM04554 is not good enough and imo nowhere close.

[burtandernie]

There are a lot of people that use fin and get results 6 months or later. Id say the majority even. So judging how effective fin is after 3 months for everyone in the study isnt really giving a real idea of how good it is. Is SM the same way? No one on earth knows that for a disease no one understands. So is SM good enough? We dont know yet, but 3 month results IMO are pretty meaningless because you cant take that percent and just do math on it or try to predict where it goes. Its not predictable where counts would be in 6-12 months you just have to wait.

[rdawg]

You speak of efficacy, which in definition is how effective this drug is in doing what it claims to. The results speak for themselves, a 10% increase in 3 months at best is not efficacious compared to the other treatments out there. Look at finasteride and DUT for example, there is a wide spectrum of results for those drugs ranging from no effect (which is very rare) to practically a full recovery of all lost hair, and not to mention maintenance for up to decades of use or more.

Yes, I agree that 3 months is not a lot of time to see full results, but even in those 3 months there have been numerous cases of people using finasteride/dut and minox which show a much better result. So I stand by what I said earlier, compared to our current treatments, SM04554 is not good enough and imo nowhere close.

I would love to see some examples of a more than 10% increase in 3 months or less on Fin or DUT I have never read anything on that.

and Im not talking about 1 or 2 extreme cases, show me what the average increase is for FIN and DUT after 3 months, then tell me this stuff is useless.

youre telling me a drug that after 130 days(a little over 4 months) shows a positive trajectory is not good enough? Do you think the drug will only get worse after that, why wouldnt we assume the drug continues to work when there was a statistical increase 40 days after discontinuation

I'm actually laughing that you are calling a drug that has a clear positive trajectory and shows growth in it's initial stage 'nowhere close'

If they simply maintained in months 6-12 I would agree, but the statistics show that the opposite should be true and they havent even tested what happens when they continue the dosage.

I would also like to add that you are attacking a drug that is showing an increase in haircount on late stage NW4+ cases not early stage cases which would normally show much more response to drugs.

Has any drug including FIN, DUT or Minoxidil ever shown a statistical effect on late stage balding?

[x4342]

I would love to see some examples of a more than 10% increase in 3 months or less on Fin or DUT I have never read anything on that.

and Im not talking about 1 or 2 extreme cases, show me what the average increase is for FIN and DUT after 3 months, then tell me this stuff is useless.

youre telling me a drug that after 130 days(a little over 4 months) shows a positive trajectory is not good enough? Do you think the drug will only get worse after that, why wouldnt we assume the drug continues to work when there was a statistical increase 40 days after discontinuation

I'm actually laughing that you are calling a drug that has a clear positive trajectory and shows growth in it's initial stage 'nowhere close'

If they simply maintained in months 6-12 I would agree, but the statistics show that the opposite should be true and they havent even tested what happens when they continue the dosage.

I would also like to add that you are attacking a drug that is showing an increase in haircount on late stage NW4+ cases not early stage cases which would normally show much more response to drugs.

Has any drug including FIN, DUT or Minoxidil ever shown a statistical effect on late stage balding?

Unfortunately that isn't quite true. Regardless of whether someone is classified as a NW2 or NW7 all that matters is how much hair is present in the given region that is being treated. It's far easier to get regrowth in a young guy with extremely aggressive hair loss that is is a juvenile hairline/NW7 and has hair present in every region but is diffusing rapidly into a NW7 than it is in a guy with a "slick" mature hairline with tons of hair everywhere except in the far front that is completely lacking in hair.

That is why both in both the fin and minox studies they only took data from the crown region. They did that to put a positive spin on the data. It's not that fin can't improve the front it's that you only tend to get improvement where there is still plenty of hair. Once a region is bald a whole cascade of negative changes begin. It's the same problem with the histogen studies. They took their data from regions that had tons of hair and wouldn't have appeared to even show any cosmetic hair loss. Regrowing hair where there is little or no hair has always been the true challenge.


Note that Samumed did the same thing. Their baseline measurements had more than 100 terminal hairs per cm2. That is a ton of hair. In other words they already had more hair than someone typically has after a hair transplant.
People get caught up in hair numbers and percentages but these sorts of comparisons are really apples to oranges. Going from 100 hairs per cm2 to 150 hairs per cm2 is far, far easier than going from 0 hairs per cm2 to 10 hairs per cm2. It's a completely different game.
The first company to only test their product on slick regions of the scalp will be worth billions because they will truly have solved the problem.


Having said all of that I agree that people are overreacting to the news. It's easy to spin the data as positive or negative. If the improvement is continuous and sustainable it could be a be a big deal. The fact that improvement continued more rapidly from day 90 to day 135 than from day 1 to day 90 could be seen as very positive. The real "proof" will come from their actions rather than their words. If they simply initiate another phase 2 trial or go silent the naysayers are right. If they quickly initiate a phase 3, then things are about to get better.

[mayapple]

You speak of efficacy, which in definition is how effective this drug is in doing what it claims to. The results speak for themselves, a 10% increase in 3 months at best is not efficacious compared to the other treatments out there. Look at finasteride and DUT for example, there is a wide spectrum of results for those drugs ranging from no effect (which is very rare) to practically a full recovery of all lost hair, and not to mention maintenance for up to decades of use or more.

Yes, I agree that 3 months is not a lot of time to see full results, but even in those 3 months there have been numerous cases of people using finasteride/dut and minox which show a much better result. So I stand by what I said earlier, compared to our current treatments, SM04554 is not good enough and imo nowhere close.

It's not a really accurate assessment to straight up compare this to finasteride. I used fin for a year, and I got super super horny and half my hair fell out. Literally. 1) Many people are fed up with fin. Yes, it works wonders for some, but for a good percentage of the users, it's not efficient or the side effects are too drastic. 2) This COULD be great in complementing other treatments 3) We DO NOT even know it's true efficacy yet. Fin can take 8, 10, 14 months to start showing cosmetically significant results, if at all. 4) It is showing hair growth after stopping treatment. 10% in three months would be huge if it truly is TERMINAL hair. if you have say 30,000 hairs in the MPB zones on your head, that's 3,000 hairs in 3 months POTENTIALLY. I would chop off my right arm right now for 3,000 hairs. haha

[allTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

How about this as a reason for cautious optimism: What if the regrowth rate never becomes signifcant for a high percentage of users, but none of them see a decrease in hair? That alone would be a product I'd buy. Far-fetched?

[mayapple]

How about this as a reason for cautious optimism: What if the regrowth rate never becomes signifcant for a high percentage of users, but none of them see a decrease in hair? That alone would be a product I'd buy. Far-fetched?

Why is that far fetched? NO decrease in hair is completely maintaining and that is better than anything we have right now.

[SriHanuman]

You speak of efficacy, which in definition is how effective this drug is in doing what it claims to. The results speak for themselves, a 10% increase in 3 months at best is not efficacious compared to the other treatments out there. Look at finasteride and DUT for example, there is a wide spectrum of results for those drugs ranging from no effect (which is very rare) to practically a full recovery of all lost hair, and not to mention maintenance for up to decades of use or more.

Yes, I agree that 3 months is not a lot of time to see full results, but even in those 3 months there have been numerous cases of people using finasteride/dut and minox which show a much better result. So I stand by what I said earlier, compared to our current treatments, SM04554 is not good enough and imo nowhere close.

Don't know why you keep reffering in percentages as it doesn't make sense. And it was 10 hairs +/-6 on average, after 135 days, on a 1 cm2; 90 days usage.

[mayapple]

Someone just needs to crack the code on how to synthesis this drug, or a topical with a similar mechanism of action and we need to test it ourselves. Either that, or just wait and see if the subjects experience increased hair growth from this study in the next few months. Either way, without these, this speculation is useless.

[Trouse5858]

Someone just needs to crack the code on how to synthesis this drug, or a topical with a similar mechanism of action and we need to test it ourselves. Either that, or just wait and see if the subjects experience increased hair growth from this study in the next few months. Either way, without these, this speculation is useless.

I wouldn't get my hopes up for the first scenario. People aren't going to be able to just "synthesize" a drug like this just because they understand how it is supposed to work. That's why a pharma company doesn't release in depth details about a drugs' makeup; it's their intellectual property and without it being exclusive, they have no hopes of really being profitable long term. I mean unless there's a full blown genius in bio-chemistry whose currently unemployed and has the time to work through thousands of possible formulas that have been ruled out by a full time team of scientists, that's never going to happen. There's one option and everyone should be quite familiar with it at this point. It's called the waiting game