Tweet
Enough trails have failed in phase II or III.
-
-
I was having a look at Duke's 2014 study on bimatoprost (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/...t=X431256#othr), and, unless I'm reading the results wrong, 17 weeks of using 0.03% bimatoprost resulted in a mean increase in total hair count of 27.4% in the target area, and a 12.1% increase in terminal hairs.
Surely this seems more effective than minoxidil, and especially at such a low dose...?Comment
-
1) There is a lot of reason to believe this drug will work well (based on scientific studies), and will be developed. The circumstances surrounding the trials and how tight-lipped they've been, for as long as they've been (approx. 8 months since final data collection in Sept. 2014), are fishy. They haven't even disclosed the results to their shareholders, which is both unusual, and tells me they are protecting their investment by doing so. Loose lips sink ships. I think it has a lot to with other parties having access to developing bimatoprost. They don't want anyone to know it works until they have a licensed product themselves. They have the potential of losing money if the word is out before they have their own product.
On the other hand, revealing that the trial failed isn't that big of a deal for a company like this, as they have deep pockets as anyone in big pharma. They have a lot of lucrative and likely successful products in their pipeline, anyway. They wouldn't keep things this quiet for this long unless it's a success, given that bimatoprost is accessible to many different parties. That's my take.
2) I would consider changing it if it's possible. I'll change it every year until a new treatment satisfies me, then I will no longer be on this forum lolComment
-
Ive mentioned this before but ive been using bim for 6-7 months w no regrowth at all. Im also already using dut and fin. Any ideas why this wouldnt be working for me? Im almost 40 yrs old. Could that be the reason?Comment
-
Just gonna add some more facts to the discussion here.
This morning, Actavis had their Q1 2015 earnings call. The company is doing extraordinarily well.
The bad news is that they mentioned the clinical progress of and announced new clinical trials for several key Allergan products (DARPin, bimatoprost SR, etc.) without mentioning anything about bimatoprost for hair growth. No analysts even inquired about bimatoprost for hair growth (suggesting that this may not be a major priority outside of our community).
The company also mentioned, however, that they are still in the process of working through their pipeline and making decisions as to which programs will move forward and which programs will not. They are planning on moving forward with about 70 products, 50 of which are already late-stage. (source: http://actavis.com/news/news/thomson...nce-in-first-q)
The bottom line is that we still have no idea as to the efficacy of bimatoprost for hair growth. If things were great, Actavis is likely to have swiftly moved forward with Phase 3 as it has done with several other of its properties. Speculation by 2014 that Actavis is staying quiet BECAUSE bimatoprost is a known success is almost assuredly wrong. Companies do not offer press releases for failed products. They stay quiet until they announce their pipeline on a going forward basis (something Actavis said it plans to do during its next R&D day), and the products that don't make the cut are silently dropped. Thus, silence does not = success.
Now, I'm not saying bimatoprost has failed. I really have no idea. It may or may not be one of the many clinical programs Actavis hopes to push forward in the relatively near term. But we know that it is not currently in Phase 3, and we also know that it could be a long time before we are made aware of success/failure. All I want to say is that the business analysis (not necessarily the scientific analysis, which I think is generally sound) taking place on this forum is too highly speculative, in my opinion. At this point, all we can really do is wait and hope that Actavis realizes the promise of bimatoprost as a clinical and commercial opportunity.Comment
-
I listened to the conference call this morning and was actually registered to ask a question, but they only took about 10 questions from different investors. Nothing was asked about Bim for MPB because I don't think people know about it. It was in Allergan's pipeline, not Actavis's. Could this be why Actavis is not talking about it?
I have sent an email to the VP of Investor Relations earlier today. Haven't yet received a response. I'll call her tomorrow to discuss this.Comment
-
Your anger is misguided. Came across to me as a legit question versus a rhetorical one. In which case, I gave you an answer. My sincere apologies if your question was made with a hint of sarcasm. I didn't see a point in your question...
Continue wasting time on a eye lash drug that won't make it to market and if it does is miles away from reaching actual product to your bald head. You don't even know the results of this for hairloss let alone when/if it will come to fruition.
Get mad at the lack of hairloss treatments that causes you to make such retarded rhetorical questions. There isn't a solution outside of minox/fin. Deal with it. I am.Comment
-
Well your conclusions are wrong, prostaglanding analog works, to some people even little dose like 0.01 let hairs grows like crazy with documented pics made from docs and not aneddoctal bullshit like 95% of posts here, they can be a solution to people who cannot use minox or fin or where those treatment didn't give good results, we can discuss if can be a good product for the market even if the % of people responding to treatment are inferior to minox, or we can discuss if the cost for the 3% solution is too high for consumers but we cannot say "this doesn't work" becaose that's a lieComment
-
We know Bim works, we just don't know if it works well enough to be profitable over minox. The most likely scenario is they still don't know if they will continue on with bim for alopecia. Preliminary trials would seem to indicate that extremely low doses work to some extent, so it's just a question of how much does dose matter.
Also, I've been an investor in an unrelated biotech for a year or so now, and I've learned the hard way that companies definitely aren't obligated to release trial result information to investors. It's very frustrating sometimes, but that's the way it is.Comment
Comment