12% increase in vellus hair.seemingly bad but hope it will compund in 12 and 24 months follow ups.
05-02-2012 08:46 AM
534623
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alchemist
The placebo groups recieved injections. The wounding process incurred from the injection may be responsible for some the results seen in the placebo group.
i think you're right. cotsarelis and others could show this effect at least in mice. but could also be just the normal result after six month of any dormant, resting, circulating hairs in the skin. but the same for the real treatment site.
05-02-2012 08:47 AM
Goldilocks
I'm not too clear on the study design, so I'm hoping you'll bear with me and someone can explain. From the press release it sounds like they counted actual hairs on the participants' heads. Obviously hair grows in cycles, and the mere irritation from the placebo injection could have resulted in new growth. I use ketoconazole shampoo for this same purpose. Are they not looking at the actual hair follicle, so see whether existing ones have been plumped up as a result of the treatment, or whether ones that weren't even visible before can now be seen? Thanks for any clarification. I would like to understand all this better.
05-02-2012 08:51 AM
534623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldilocks
From the press release it sounds like they counted actual hairs on the participants' heads. Obviously hair grows in cycles, and the mere irritation from the placebo injection could have resulted in new growth.
It's really tough not to get down about these results. Unless there is a dramatic increase in results from 6-12 months (which i'm not ruling out as a possibility, though I think unlikely to see anything major), i can't see how they could justify investing the cash necessary to push this forward. My guess is that they need to get the terminal hair count over the 20% mark to have anything that would warrant further pursuit. They are very, very far from that. So, it would take a turnaround of epic proportions to get them back in line with what David Hall was saying in the interviews. I'm not holding out any hope for that.
If the results stay as they are, even if they double what they have, Replicel is finished. They're going to have a hard time attracting investor money with those numbers. And I think that attracting a big corporate buyer is very unlikely. Or if it does happen, it's gonna be at a price that makes David Hall cry. So, depending on the next interim results (12 months) this turkey might be cooked. I'll say it doesn't look good at all.
05-02-2012 09:03 AM
UK_
You have to also remember that Replicel has not figured out 'dosing range' yet - this phase was primarily for safety, when they explore what dose works best I am sure we will see far better results.
05-02-2012 09:14 AM
BoSox
Quote:
Originally Posted by UK_
You have to also remember that Replicel has not figured out 'dosing range' yet - this phase was primarily for safety, when they explore what dose works best I am sure we will see far better results.
I'm glad you're not the only one besides Spencer that has common sense.
Thanks! It's interesting that the study authors conclude that this device is "error-prone" and "awaits refinement".
05-02-2012 09:25 AM
john2399
Im just intrested to see what david hall says about this. Anyone know if we are getting the interview tonight?
05-02-2012 09:49 AM
gmonasco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinning@30
Also, remember that the Replicel injections were to the subjects' temples, which are considered much more difficult to treat than the crown. It could be more effective in other parts of the scalp, we just don't know yet.
Since the primary purpose of this clinical trial is safety, I wonder if Replicel chose the temple region for injection because they had some reason to believe that was where any negative health effects would be most apparent?
