Allergan Corproate Takeover Bad for Bimatoprost

[Pate]

Nobody really knows yet. CB has only been tested in humans once, officially, and that was a small POC study that used iontophoresis to deliver the drug. It seems to have had a decent amount of regrowth, up to 50% more thickness density, but the sample size it really too small and most importantly, we have seen that trials like this are often subject to very high levels of bias.

The minox plus dermarolling study is the prime example. The apparently amazing results couldn't be reproduced when heaps of us tried the same protocol.

This doesn't mean the CB results were bogus, but it does mean we need more trials to be sure. We also need them tested with a vehicle and not iontophoresis.

It should in theory pretty much stop hair loss in its tracks and probably give some regrowth in areas that are not too far gone. Fin only reduces DHT in the scalp by something like 30%, and has no effect on T (in fact it increases T in the blood, and presumably in the hair follicle too). CB should, in theory, block far more than 30% of both DHT and T, and that number could be 90% for all we know - it seems reasonable.

So it should blow fin away in terms of stopping hair loss. But we know that even castration doesn't regrow much hair, and once miniaturisation is well advanced, it's beyond help for any anti-androgen. So don't expect significant temple growth or conversion of large amounts of vellus back to terminal hairs.

Best of all, CB shouldn't have any noticeable systemic effect at all. Fin reduces DHT by something like 90% in the bloodstream IIRC. That is a nasty effect on the male body, and is the main reason I hate taking it.

So in conclusion - fin reduces DHT by 90% in the body but only 30% in the hair follicle. CB should not reduce DHT in the body at all, but should block both DHT and T at much more than 30% in the follicle.

[beetee]

Thanks for the info. I wonder how many people on here are interested in something that stops progression as opposed to provides regrowth (I'm sure that ideally most would want both, but I think that for many the only interest is in something that can provide regrowth). I'm guessing this probably mostly depends on how much loss the individual in question has already suffered.

One thing to think about: if they find something that stops loss, it's possible/probable that they'll stop doing research into anything that might provide regrowth. All the full haired people alive at that point can stop loss any time they want (probably before it begins or at the very start). Why waste money on researching a treatment for a problem that won't exist once those already afflicted die out?

[Swooping]

Thanks for the info. I wonder how many people on here are interested in something that stops progression as opposed to provides regrowth (I'm sure that ideally most would want both, but I think that for many the only interest is in something that can provide regrowth). I'm guessing this probably mostly depends on how much loss the individual in question has already suffered.

One thing to think about: if they find something that stops loss, it's possible/probable that they'll stop doing research into anything that might provide regrowth. All the full haired people alive at that point can stop loss any time they want (probably before it begins or at the very start). Why waste money on researching a treatment for a problem that won't exist once those already afflicted die out?

We already have pretty good treatments that stop hairloss, pick DUT + RU combination and 99% of people will have perfect hair without further progression for years. If anybody says they different they are either not suffering from AGA but a other form of alopecia, or they are aging and just generally losing hair quality (density,thickness, graying of hair) as everybody else due to oxidative stress.

They obviously can induce side effects though, that is not something you want to experience as a 20 year old .

[beetee]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/john-...2?mod=yahoo_hs

The hostile takeover is really gathering speed now. Things look very bad for Allergan. The company that is going to take it over is very much known for removing all research and development money. So we can all pretty much kiss Bimatoprost for hair goodbye.

For all those that will insist this is not a big deal because it never would have worked, two absolute facts remain: a small scale study showed that the underlying chemicals regrew hair in humans in a laboratory setting and Allergan reported that their original formula regrew some hair in their original clinical trial. People post all kinds of unconfirmed stuff on here about regrowth, but there is very little actual scientific evidence that any other treatment currently known has regrown hair.

Even if this thing never panned out, it would have been very, very valuable to follow it through and make sure that the limits of its capabilities were totally explored. And they may have further mapped the underlying process of hair loss and hair growth. Remember that Luis Garza gave total credit to Allergan's Latisse product for causing researchers to understand the importance of PGD2.

In my opinion, this is a very sad day for the hair loss community.

[FearTheLoss]

hahhaha all speculation. You have no idea what is going to happen and to say anything else is a blatant lie. They won't cut out a potential billion dollar product when it is about to go into phase 3 if the results are promising. In the end it comes down to making money and if they are going to make money, they won't cut it. Plain and simple. Stop starting rumors when you don't have a clue what is going to happen...too much negativity.

[rdawg]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/john-...2?mod=yahoo_hs

The hostile takeover is really gathering speed now. Things look very bad for Allergan. The company that is going to take it over is very much known for removing all research and development money. So we can all pretty much kiss Bimatoprost for hair goodbye.

For all those that will insist this is not a big deal because it never would have worked, two absolute facts remain: a small scale study showed that the underlying chemicals regrew hair in humans in a laboratory setting and Allergan reported that their original formula regrew some hair in their original clinical trial. People post all kinds of unconfirmed stuff on here about regrowth, but there is very little actual scientific evidence that any other treatment currently known has regrown hair.

Even if this thing never panned out, it would have been very, very valuable to follow it through and make sure that the limits of its capabilities were totally explored. And they may have further mapped the underlying process of hair loss and hair growth. Remember that Luis Garza gave total credit to Allergan's Latisse product for causing researchers to understand the importance of PGD2.

In my opinion, this is a very sad day for the hair loss community.

Wow this is a crazy assumption, I see where you're coming from but you have to look at the other side too!!

Why would they drop a huge product like this when a lower dose version is already doing very well on the market for a slightly different issue? This product will bring them 10X the profit.

[beetee]

You are right that there are assumptions involved, and any of these could be wrong. However, I have been following this closely and know a fair amount about the players involved. The assumptions I'm making are educated and justified, but we'll have to see how things play out. The issue is that this company is 100% about making money for themselves and shareholders in the short term. There is much work left to be done on Bimatoprost for hair, and that is the exact type of work that Valeant is all about doing away with.

In the meantime, perhaps you should read this article closely and start educating yourselves about the types of people that we're talking about and their proven track record:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bid-f...iny-1402443053

Also, read this:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/...ype=blogs&_r=0

Once you read these, I'd like to hear your potentially revised responses now that you are a little better informed.

[beetee]

For those without the patience to read the articles (although you should), here are some relevant pull out quotes from the NY Times piece:

"Allergan spends 17 percent of its revenue on research and development, compared to Valeant’s 3 percent."

"In case there is any question about Valeant’s slash-and-burn strategy, here is Mr. Pearson in his own words from last week on the value of research and development: 'There has been lots and lots of reports, independent reports, talking about how R.&D. on average is no longer productive. I think most people accept that. So it is begging for a new model, and that is hopefully what we have come up with.'"

[beetee]

From the Wall Street Journal article:

"[After Valeant took over Medicis], Most of the research-and-development staff at Medicis headquarters in Scottsdale, Ariz., got the black envelopes [meaning they were fired], according to people familiar with the matter. Soon, most of the roughly 30 research projects under way were also dropped, according to the people and physicians who conducted trials for Medicis.

Such cuts are a cornerstone of the hard-nosed strategy pursued by Valeant: buy up companies, shed most of their research operations and make money selling their products."


If you read nothing else, read the following two quotes:

"Some Wall Street analysts, credit-rating firms and industry officials question whether Valeant can sustain its heady growth without finding new products through research. Many pharmaceutical companies are making deals to acquire new medicines. But their deals usually bring along scientists, research programs and potential drugs farther out in the pipeline that, while an expensive investment, present long-term opportunities for the development of new products and markets. Valeant, in contrast, targets cash-generating products, providing a quick boost to revenue, and cuts assets requiring more investment."

"Before the deal closed, Valeant reviewed Medicis's research pipeline, according to people familiar with the discussions. Medicis officials recommended Valeant finish about half its roughly 30 projects because they were so promising.

But Valeant officials made clear they weren't interested in anything that wasn't on the cusp of near-certain approval, the people said."

[sascha]

So we are basically screwed again? Awesome....