Does anyone have the result of the Ru58841 Phase II Study?

[marikeo]

I have looked everywhere. Perhaps it was under a different drug name at the time. Any help is appreciated!!!

M

[marikeo]

I have looked everywhere. Perhaps it was under a different drug name at the time. Any help is appreciated!!!

M

Bump...

[BaldJerry]

Good look finding this one as the results were never made public. I believe a different company performed phase 2. A company called Prostraken and the RU58841 was called PSK3841. These results don't exist anywhere on the internet.

[BaldJerry]

I can tell you though I have seen Prostrakans's CEO state publically after the phase 2 results that PSK3841 performed better than finasteride at 6 months. This was when they were looking for a merger or buyer for the company. If he is marketing the drug saying it works well at 6 months you have to assume it was safe at 6 months as well or why would he be marketing it? Right?

[marikeo]

I can tell you though I have seen Prostrakans's CEO state publically after the phase 2 results that PSK3841 performed better than finasteride at 6 months. This was when they were looking for a merger or buyer for the company. If he is marketing the drug saying it works well at 6 months you have to assume it was safe at 6 months as well or why would he be marketing it? Right?

I found that as well. Would seem logical.

[hairandthere]

I remember following this and later researching it back in 2008. I believe the main reason for RU not being commercialized (besides a company in Japan that did offer it for a short time under license agreement) were that the results ended up being close enough to finasteride. The projected ROI for a phase 3 trial + marketing it in order to sell it up against propecia wasn't too enticing. (Apply a liquid solution or pop a pill?) So the only other thing they had as an option was to license it out to those companies that wanted to take on the challenge.

I believed at the time that stability in the solution may have also contributed to the decision by most companies not to license it but seeing as how people are now claiming that it remains stable in KB solution for much longer, maybe not so much.

Here's an old thread back from 2007 when these issues arose: http://www.*****************/interact...p/t-33086.html

[Dan26]

Havn't actually seen the studies but this is a decent article on it and I beleive it sites some of the information in those studies.

http://www.examiner.com/article/an-e...dness-ru-58841

[BaldJerry]

Who knows why these drug companies don't take hairloss products to market. Look at dut for example. Obviously works and is safe enough for tons of BPH suffererrs to use. Maybe the profit just isn't there sometimes. Not sure.

[KO1]

It's expensive to put these drugs through P3 trials and get it approved. If they don't feel there's a profit, they won't do it. Cosmo's strategy of getting CB approved for Acne is a great idea to bring it to market faster. Acne efficacy is easy to determine.

It doesn't make sense for GSK to get Dut approved for hairloss. It will be expensive, and propecia-haters already go crazy over fin, Dut is even less well understood.