Where are the phase IIb results for Bimatoprost?

[It's2014ComeOnAlready]

I do not know the reason why people are still pinning hopes on Bimatoprost for hairloss on the bald scalp

From the Cotsarelis patent:

GD2 was detected as 17 pg/mg of tissue in haired scalp and 75.5 pg/mg in bald scalp, representing a 4.4 fold increase in bald tissue. PGF2a also was slightly elevated in bald scalp with 6.7 pg/mg in haired scalp and 15.9 pg/mg in bald scalp.

I choose to follow Dr Cotsareli's findings anytime of the day.

I think you're confused. No one is expecting bim to help with a bald scalp. The point of bim is to reverse thinning, and promote hair growth with existing follicles.

[unbalding]

please refer to previous posts in this thread.

0.03% is for eyelashes, they initially tested 0.3% for the scalp in phase 2a, that wasn't strong enough so they trialled "a formulation which is 10X stronger," at 3% for phase 2b.

Here is the study:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/...ecia%22&rank=2

There is no mention of the dosage. Allergan has never said that they tested a 3% concentration of bimatoprost. I don't doubt that you saw it on a forum somewhere, but that doesn't make it true.

[It's2014ComeOnAlready]

Here is the study:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/...ecia%22&rank=2

There is no mention of the dosage. Allergan has never said that they tested a 3% concentration of bimatoprost. I don't doubt that you saw it on a forum somewhere, but that doesn't make it true.

ugh, ITS IN THE PATENT. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO...atoprost&q=aga

"The preferred bimatoprost concentration range is about 2-4% w/w, more preferably about 2.5-3.5% w/w. These preferred bimatoprost concentration ranges allow a surprisingly good balance to be achieved between the wanted pharmacologic effects of the composition and any unwanted side-effects. It had previously been thought that bimatoprost compositions for stimulating growth of hair should have a much lower bimatoprost concentration; this has now surprisingly been found not to be the case."

Dude, I don't have time to answer everyone's questions. I don't repost things found in other forums, I look this stuff up myself with plenty of reliable references. Go through this thread if you want all of your questions answered.

I'm done posting until we get more news about bim.

[unbalding]

ugh, ITS IN THE PATENT. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO...atoprost&q=aga

"The preferred bimatoprost concentration range is about 2-4% w/w, more preferably about 2.5-3.5% w/w. These preferred bimatoprost concentration ranges allow a surprisingly good balance to be achieved between the wanted pharmacologic effects of the composition and any unwanted side-effects. It had previously been thought that bimatoprost compositions for stimulating growth of hair should have a much lower bimatoprost concentration; this has now surprisingly been found not to be the case."

Dude, I don't have time to answer everyone's questions. I don't repost things found in other forums, I look this stuff up myself with plenty of reliable references. Go through this thread if you want all of your questions answered.

It seems to me if you got it from the patent you could've said "from the patent", just as easily as, "from the forum". Anyways, the patent doesn't confirm your claims. The fact is you don't know what concentrations they tested, nor what the results were. All we know is that in their latest trial they tested a ten-fold increase over the previous trial that failed to meet expectations. Without knowing what the concentration of the previous trial was we can't know what the concentration of the latest trial was. They may very well have tested 1%, 3%, and 5%, and found 1% to be the optimal dose. I'm not trying to nitpick, but I don't think assumptions should be posted as facts.

[It's2014ComeOnAlready]

It seems to me if you got it from the patent you could've said "from the patent", just as easily as, "from the forum". Anyways, the patent doesn't confirm your claims. The fact is you don't know what concentrations they tested, nor what the results were. All we know is that in their latest trial they tested a ten-fold increase over the previous trial that failed to meet expectations. Without knowing what the concentration of the previous trial was we can't know what the concentration of the latest trial was. They may very well have tested 1%, 3%, and 5%, and found 1% to be the optimal dose. I'm not trying to nitpick, but I don't think assumptions should be posted as facts.

You are trying to nitpick.

Bottom line: .3% was previously tested, and that is also included in the patent, if you bothered to do some reading. Also, who gives rat crap what the actual number for the concentration is? They figured it out, and they are moving forward with bim as they plainly stated. They have said all along that if it is noticeably stronger than minox, they will move forward with it and bring it to market. All signs point to them doing just that.

You are quibbling over BS.

[Hubris]

You are trying to nitpick.

Bottom line: .3% was previously tested, and that is also included in the patent, if you bothered to do some reading. Also, who gives rat crap what the actual number for the concentration is? They figured it out, and they are moving forward with bim as they plainly stated. They have said all along that if it is noticeably stronger than minox, they will move forward with it and bring it to market. All signs point to them doing just that.

You are quibbling over BS.

As you state, if this product is to be released, it will surely be more powerful than Minoxidil. Want I want to know is, could Bimatoprost and Minoxidil be used together to create a synergistic growth effect? I understand that perhaps no one really knows the answer to this, but I'm open to theory and speculation.

[unbalding]

You are trying to nitpick.

Bottom line: .3% was previously tested, and that is also included in the patent, if you bothered to do some reading. Also, who gives rat crap what the actual number for the concentration is? They figured it out, and they are moving forward with bim as they plainly stated. They have said all along that if it is noticeably stronger than minox, they will move forward with it and bring it to market. All signs point to them doing just that.

You are quibbling over BS.

Again, you don't know .3% was previously tested. You have no way of knowing that. To answer your question, people who want to try it give a "rat crap" what the actual concentration is. You are telling people that you know, factually, that 3% is the optimal dosage, when in fact you are just assuming that. Someone who reads that might go out and start using an expensive compound at 3x the concentration that is necessary. All signs point to bimatoprost working better than minoxidil, but it is very important to know the optimal dosage. Let's not tell people we know what it is when we really don't.

[It's2014ComeOnAlready]

Again, you don't know .3% was previously tested. You have no way of knowing that. To answer your question, people who want to try it give a "rat crap" what the actual concentration is. You are telling people that you know, factually, that 3% is the optimal dosage, when in fact you are just assuming that. Someone who reads that might go out and start using an expensive compound at 3x the concentration that is necessary. All signs point to bimatoprost working better than minoxidil, but it is very important to know the optimal dosage. Let's not tell people we know what it is when we really don't.

AGAIN, It shows in the patent that .3% was previously tested in patients. It gives actual evidence. Then it goes on to describe how and why it arrived at that range of 2.5%-3.5%. I'm not making anything up. You are assuming I am because you refuse to READ any material on your own.

It isn't important to know the optimal dosage because pure bimatoprost powder costs $700-$900 per GRAM. Go buy some if you're so curious, and let us know how it goes. I'll wait until a product is distributed worldwide and becomes much more affordable.

[unbalding]

AGAIN, It shows in the patent that .3% was previously tested in patients. It gives actual evidence. Then it goes on to describe how and why it arrived at that range of 2.5%-3.5%. I'm not making anything up. You are assuming I am because you refuse to READ any material on your own.

It isn't important to know the optimal dosage because pure bimatoprost powder costs $700-$900 per GRAM. Go buy some if you're so curious, and let us know how it goes. I'll wait until a product is distributed worldwide and becomes much more affordable.

You're right, I don't have time to read the entire patent. I have a life.

I did find this though:

Examples of particularly preferred compositions for growing hair by topical application comprise bimatoprost in free form or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, wherein the bimatoprost is contained in an amount of about 0.3% w/w to about 4% w/w

That's a big range. There's no reason to believe that the optimal dose is at the top of that range. Considering the cost of the powder, I think it makes more sense to try 1% before trying 3%. If you want to try 3% then go right ahead, but don't tell people that 3% is the optimal dose. You don't work for Allergan.

I'm about to start PGE2. If I don't have success with that I will try bimatoprost at 1%. Why should I tell you how it goes though? You're a jerk. All I did was ask you a simple question, "where did you get that information from", so that I could check it out myself. Instead of answering me you picked a fight. You don't want to help me by just telling me where you got your information from, but you want me to share the results of my experiment with you? Get out of here.

[It's2014ComeOnAlready]

I did a little more digging and it turns out, in February 2014, Allergan invested $10.6 million into this plant in Waco for a 22,000 sq ft. expansion to produce Latisse. I think it might be fair to say, this place could be the main center in the US where bimatoprost is produced by Allergan.

and

Kris Collins, senior vice president for economic development at the Greater Waco Chamber of Commerce, said about the plant: "If it’s an eye product made by Allergan, it’s probably produced in Waco."

Now, I know this guy isn't an Allergan representative. However, he must have intimate knowledge the kind of distribution they do, what they produce, etc. etc. I'd actually trust the word of person in his position, then someone working for the company. They're more likely to not say anything at all.

It could be another drug, but I find all these coincidences are starting to paint a picture imo.