Anyone got any news as to what is being said at this conference thats going on?
10characters
05-11-2012 01:33 PM
The Alchemist
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmonasco
It has, but the important question, as always, is how much of that growth is truly "new" hair (i.e., newly-created follices or revived "dead" follicles) rather than existing hair that has just come out of the telogen (i.e., resting) phase. Histogen's paper references the latter:
"Preclinical studies demonstrated no safety issues and suggested that the induction of anagen in telogen follicles in a murine model of hair growth might be accelerated by injection of HSC."
I believe the study design will tease out what's due to natural cycling and what's due to the treatment. That's what the control injections are for. The area getting vehicle only will have hairs cycling just the same as the area treated with HSC. Any statistically significant differences between the two should be due to the treatment.
05-11-2012 02:47 PM
gmonasco
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alchemist
I believe the study design will tease out what's due to natural cycling and what's due to the treatment. That's what the control injections are for. The area getting vehicle only will have hairs cycling just the same as the area treated with HSC. Any statistically significant differences between the two should be due to the treatment.
But if the treatment is actually promoting early cycling (rather than "natural" cycling), will such an approach distinguish the difference?
05-11-2012 02:50 PM
yeahyeahyeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmonasco
But if the treatment is actually promoting early cycling (rather than "natural" cycling), will such an approach distinguish the difference?
I think you need to stop asking questions like this.
These guys are professional scientists, I am sure when developing this product, they have already thought about the things you are writing about. Due to the nature of this being very hands on. So, if anything, as much as anyone else, Histogen want to get their product out there.
The results are so far very promising, take heed in that. A bunch of forumers, can at best speculate.
05-11-2012 03:44 PM
The Alchemist
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmonasco
But if the treatment is actually promoting early cycling (rather than "natural" cycling), will such an approach distinguish the difference?
You mean in the same way that Minox will force hairs into the growth phase of the hair cycle? That's an interesting point.
If they are testing in a$$ bald areas, where terminal hair hasn't grown in a long time, they might get some answers to that question.
Also, observing the hairs over 1-2 years, tracking hair cycling, changes in hair diameter, affects on local tissue enviroment etc.. might give some insight in to that. They know that doomed hairs start spending more and more time in the telogen phase, they grow back thinner and thinner everytime...so maybe tracking those parameters will give some insight into what's happening.
05-11-2012 03:44 PM
Nilli57211
I'm sure these people are not stupid - they know what they are doing and would not mistake new hair follicles and miniaturized-to-terminal follicles for simply follicles being coaxed out of the telogen phase. I also don't think that simply coaxing follicles out of the telogen phase would produce that much regrowth.
They actually saw an increase in terminal hairs - as far as I know, Rogaine does not give people more terminal hair. If they actually analyzed some of the individual hairs and saw that specific hairs that were once miniaturized are now terminal (which I don't know if they've done), that would help their case as well.
05-11-2012 04:32 PM
BoSox
I think it's funny people are comparing Histogen to Rogaine or anything else out there today. That's like comparing a Cessna to an F-16.
Can't wait for Histogen, only a few more years of this crap..I can do it.
05-11-2012 05:19 PM
yeahyeahyeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
I think it's funny people are comparing Histogen to Rogaine or anything else out there today. That's like comparing a Cessna to an F-16.
Can't wait for Histogen, only a few more years of this crap..I can do it.
Goes to show how pessimistic people are.
05-11-2012 05:23 PM
Kirby_
I can understand why the old timers are so pessimistic... They've had plenty of knockbacks and false hopes. :(
Weird, I tried to search for it but I didn't find it... that is the same paper though mine is better quality and not covered in those "PENALTIES APPLY" warnings. Oh well, not bothered by $15 and I am happy to support the journal publishing Histogen's results. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmonasco
But if you look at the figure referenced in that note, it shows photos displaying a hair count going from a baseline of 214.5 hairs to 324.5 hairs after one year, which is only a 51.2% increase.
That is a typo, it should say there was a 123.4% increase in TERMINAL hair count, not total hair count, and a 51.2% increase in total hair count as you say. This is what it says in Ziering's presentation at ISHRS in Alaska last year, on the last page of his abstract where the same picture is shown. There are a couple of other typos in this paper too, for instance it refers to a 2mm scale bar but there is no scale bar on the pic.
Regardless, BoSox is right, this was a fluke result at this stage. The average result was much lower (30% terminal, 16% total) to the point where we really need the treatment to be compoundable to stand any hope of an effective treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryDavid
Why is the haircount increasing in the placebo group?
Even when you look at the average of all subjects it is increasing after one year.
It's not increasing significantly, in fact statistically most of those values are well within 1 standard deviation. I suspect there is a very small, sub-conscious bias on the part of the testers. In the back of their mind they know that they are counting the 12 month results and even though they don't know if they have a placebo or a real injection, they might count a hair here and there that is borderline, or round off a thickness measurement, etc. It's nothing to worry about here because if it's less than 1 std deviation away from zero it is statistically insignificant.
The other faint possibility that has been raised before about placebos apparently working in these trials is that the wounding caused by the needle and the injection of placebo is actually trigging a small hair growth response. Wounding forms a major part of Follica's research into growing hair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2020
^ that's my biggest worry right now.... 2mm is nothing. That's less than the size of your fingernail.
To apply all that growth on your entire head would need 50,000+ injections...
50,000 is much too high an estimate... 2mm spacing would mean 4mm between injections. Assuming there is a bit of overlap beyond 2mm you could probably get away with a 4x4mm square grid pattern, which is 2.5 injections per linear centimetre or 6.25 per square centimetre. So in a 10x10cm area you'd need 625 injections. Work out how many 10x10cm areas you'd need treatment on and that's how many you need, for me it would be about 1250. Even a NW7 wouldn't need much more than 2000 I think... of course there is no guarantee this stuff works on NW7s, it probably doesn't because the follicles are too far gone and the blood supply isn't there. All the more reason to hang onto every follicle you can while you're waiting!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nilli57211
If TOTAL hair count increased, that means that the treatment must have induced a few entirely new follicles to form as well. That's the understanding I always had - I believe what I read in one of their articles or press releases that HSC was effective in transforming vellus hairs back to terminal hairs, and it also appeared to create brand new terminal follicles as well.
Not necessarily. At any time in the balding cycle many of your hair follicles are resting. If total hair count increased, it just means that less of your follicles are resting and more are producing hair. It doesn't mean HSC created brand new follicles from scratch, or even that it reactivated dormant ones. Of course, we hope it did! But it's more likely IMO that the increase in total hair count is just because HSC stimulated some of the short-lived vellus hairs into longer-lived terminal hairs, so more of them were showing when then photo was taken.
I read that press release too, but we've since decided the language was a bit ambiguous, they didn't actually say they created new follicles from scratch, they just said they created new hairs - this may mean a dormant follicle that wasn't producing hair that showed above the skin's surface.
