Allergan Corproate Takeover Bad for Bimatoprost

[beetee]

I am posting this as I'm under the impression that at least a few of you (in addition to myself) have a continuing interest in following Allergan's clinical trials in Bimatoprost for hair.

Allergan has been fighting a hostile corporate takeover for some time now that, if successful, would possibly or even probably be bad for their ongoing research into Bimatoprost.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/allergan-formally-rejects-valeants-merger-bid/

From what I understand, the main reason Valeant wants to take over Allergan is because they think they can make it more profitable, primarily by cutting money from research and development.

[Thinning87]

Come on Joe

[rdawg]

BIM is well into it's phase IIb trials, I dont think much time is left on that either.

It may be worth the research money to develop bim, they only have one more phase to go and it definitely works at least to some extent.(probably not much more than 20-25% hair growth at most, but it still works).

[bigentries]

BIM is well into it's phase IIb trials, I dont think much time is left on that either.

It may be worth the research money to develop bim, they only have one more phase to go and it definitely works at least to some extent.(probably not much more than 20-25% hair growth at most, but it still works).

But it's too expensive

[burtandernie]

The price might come down over time. How another treatment is a bad thing regardless of cost I dont know. I mean if you add up all the money guys waste on shampoos and snake oils I dont think a treatment is be too expensive can it? At least it works and its another option. At this point be thankful for anything sooner than another 10 years

[CAlex]

The price might come down over time. How another treatment is a bad thing regardless of cost I dont know.

Originally Posted by burtandernie

Well said.
If some new treatment came out that was only affordable by the wealthy it would still be good for us. It would bring more investors into the game to back smaller companies working on this. It would also be able to be duplicated down the line for a more affordable price.

any step in the right direction is welcome regardless of price or even just marginal improvement on today's options.

[beetee]

When it comes to hoping for and following potential treatments, I think you kind of have to throw price considerations out the window.

As many on here no doubt know, the prices drug companies set are not based on the underlying cost of the product (or even really on the exact amount of money spent on that product in research and development, as the drug companies and their representatives would have you believe). It's based on their determination of what price the market would stand - in other words, at what point does the cost stop people who could theoretically afford it from buying it?

What percentage of individual wealth would those on here refuse to pay to regain (theoretically) a full head of hair? If you made X amount of money a year, what sacrifices would you make to dedicate whatever was required to afford that medication? (I personally think people would be surprised at how socially disruptive a cure would be - I think you'd have tons of men selling their homes, leaving their wives, etc.). Also, publicly traded companies have an actual legal duty to maximize profit for their shareholders. In other words, they could be sued if they could have made more money on a product and didn't.

If anyone wants to see the direction drug prices are going in, check out what's going on with Sovaldi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...51c_story.html. Add to the fact that any hair loss treatment is totally voluntary (as it would be considered cosmetic in most people's eyes - those of us who suffer greatly because of it probably have a more complicated attitude towards it), and the great majority of society will not feel any sympathy for anyone's inability to afford it.

Truth be told (and perhaps somewhat tragically), it's possible that even if something is developed the great majority of people on here won't be able to afford it for a long time. BUT, there's no reason not to keep hoping that something significant will come out. That's really the hardest part by far. If something comes into existence, then we'll worry about how to pay for it.

[Pate]

Valeant is the same company that took over Medicis, who hold the licensing rights to CB. So they will own the rights to the only two hair loss drugs actually in active development.

They seem to be still committed to CB. Hopefully they are for bim too, if they get Allergan.

[beetee]

Valeant is the same company that took over Medicis, who hold the licensing rights to CB. So they will own the rights to the only two hair loss drugs actually in active development.

They seem to be still committed to CB. Hopefully they are for bim too, if they get Allergan.

Pate, is CB just thought to stop or slow hair loss as opposed to regrow hair?

[rdawg]

Pate, is CB just thought to stop or slow hair loss as opposed to regrow hair?

At this point it's seen as a more powerful version of fin without the side effects.

We don't know the extent of it's capabilities, in my eyes if you are an agressive sufferer like me you need a local anti-androgen like CB as well as Fin to counter the hairloss as my hairloss has only just slowed alot, not stopped with fin.

I think CB+Fin could be a powerful combo that yes can cause growth for some.

[Pate]

Nobody really knows yet. CB has only been tested in humans once, officially, and that was a small POC study that used iontophoresis to deliver the drug. It seems to have had a decent amount of regrowth, up to 50% more thickness density, but the sample size it really too small and most importantly, we have seen that trials like this are often subject to very high levels of bias.

The minox plus dermarolling study is the prime example. The apparently amazing results couldn't be reproduced when heaps of us tried the same protocol.

This doesn't mean the CB results were bogus, but it does mean we need more trials to be sure. We also need them tested with a vehicle and not iontophoresis.

It should in theory pretty much stop hair loss in its tracks and probably give some regrowth in areas that are not too far gone. Fin only reduces DHT in the scalp by something like 30%, and has no effect on T (in fact it increases T in the blood, and presumably in the hair follicle too). CB should, in theory, block far more than 30% of both DHT and T, and that number could be 90% for all we know - it seems reasonable.

So it should blow fin away in terms of stopping hair loss. But we know that even castration doesn't regrow much hair, and once miniaturisation is well advanced, it's beyond help for any anti-androgen. So don't expect significant temple growth or conversion of large amounts of vellus back to terminal hairs.

Best of all, CB shouldn't have any noticeable systemic effect at all. Fin reduces DHT by something like 90% in the bloodstream IIRC. That is a nasty effect on the male body, and is the main reason I hate taking it.

So in conclusion - fin reduces DHT by 90% in the body but only 30% in the hair follicle. CB should not reduce DHT in the body at all, but should block both DHT and T at much more than 30% in the follicle.

[beetee]

Thanks for the info. I wonder how many people on here are interested in something that stops progression as opposed to provides regrowth (I'm sure that ideally most would want both, but I think that for many the only interest is in something that can provide regrowth). I'm guessing this probably mostly depends on how much loss the individual in question has already suffered.

One thing to think about: if they find something that stops loss, it's possible/probable that they'll stop doing research into anything that might provide regrowth. All the full haired people alive at that point can stop loss any time they want (probably before it begins or at the very start). Why waste money on researching a treatment for a problem that won't exist once those already afflicted die out?

[Swooping]

Thanks for the info. I wonder how many people on here are interested in something that stops progression as opposed to provides regrowth (I'm sure that ideally most would want both, but I think that for many the only interest is in something that can provide regrowth). I'm guessing this probably mostly depends on how much loss the individual in question has already suffered.

One thing to think about: if they find something that stops loss, it's possible/probable that they'll stop doing research into anything that might provide regrowth. All the full haired people alive at that point can stop loss any time they want (probably before it begins or at the very start). Why waste money on researching a treatment for a problem that won't exist once those already afflicted die out?

We already have pretty good treatments that stop hairloss, pick DUT + RU combination and 99% of people will have perfect hair without further progression for years. If anybody says they different they are either not suffering from AGA but a other form of alopecia, or they are aging and just generally losing hair quality (density,thickness, graying of hair) as everybody else due to oxidative stress.

They obviously can induce side effects though, that is not something you want to experience as a 20 year old .

[beetee]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/john-paulson-hedge-fund-firm-builds-1-billion-stake-in-allergan-1403731582?mod=yahoo_hs

The hostile takeover is really gathering speed now. Things look very bad for Allergan. The company that is going to take it over is very much known for removing all research and development money. So we can all pretty much kiss Bimatoprost for hair goodbye.

For all those that will insist this is not a big deal because it never would have worked, two absolute facts remain: a small scale study showed that the underlying chemicals regrew hair in humans in a laboratory setting and Allergan reported that their original formula regrew some hair in their original clinical trial. People post all kinds of unconfirmed stuff on here about regrowth, but there is very little actual scientific evidence that any other treatment currently known has regrown hair.

Even if this thing never panned out, it would have been very, very valuable to follow it through and make sure that the limits of its capabilities were totally explored. And they may have further mapped the underlying process of hair loss and hair growth. Remember that Luis Garza gave total credit to Allergan's Latisse product for causing researchers to understand the importance of PGD2.

In my opinion, this is a very sad day for the hair loss community.

[FearTheLoss]

hahhaha all speculation. You have no idea what is going to happen and to say anything else is a blatant lie. They won't cut out a potential billion dollar product when it is about to go into phase 3 if the results are promising. In the end it comes down to making money and if they are going to make money, they won't cut it. Plain and simple. Stop starting rumors when you don't have a clue what is going to happen...too much negativity.