The Evidence for PRP (including growth factors)

[kantian]

So I've been considering spending the money on PRP to maintain what hair I have for long enough that I can switch to a superior maintenance drug when it comes on the market (maybe CB or setip?).

Here is the main study I found:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338465/

This study was completed just a few months ago. I should add a word of caution that this study has only 22 total participants of which 2 are women. So of the 20 men, most of them were Norwood II or III and some were Norwood IV. They find a couple of very promising results. They labelled the times in the following way:

T1, beginning of study; T2, 3 weeks; T3, 6 weeks; T4, 3 months; T5, 6 months; and T6, 1 year.

The results are in the following link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338465/table/T2/

It seems that, on average, people still gained 10 hairs per square centimenter 1 year away from the treatment. That is effectively maintaining the amount of hair you have. They report that nobody in the study actually lost hair density over the year which means that every single person (of the 20) at least maintained their hair.

This is my first time looking at PRP studies--am I being too optimistic or does this seem very good? Granted, you need to spend up to 2k on the treatment but some people were easily spending $700/yr on Propecia which has to be taken every day and has potential side effects.

Any naysayers and people with evidence that this does not work are especially welcome. Please come forward.

[StayThick]

So I've been considering spending the money on PRP to maintain what hair I have for long enough that I can switch to a superior maintenance drug when it comes on the market (maybe CB or setip?).

Here is the main study I found:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338465/

This study was completed just a few months ago. I should add a word of caution that this study has only 22 total participants of which 2 are women. So of the 20 men, most of them were Norwood II or III and some were Norwood IV. They find a couple of very promising results. They labelled the times in the following way:

T1, beginning of study; T2, 3 weeks; T3, 6 weeks; T4, 3 months; T5, 6 months; and T6, 1 year.

The results are in the following link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338465/table/T2/

It seems that, on average, people still gained 10 hairs per square centimenter 1 year away from the treatment. That is effectively maintaining the amount of hair you have. They report that nobody in the study actually lost hair density over the year which means that every single person (of the 20) at least maintained their hair.

This is my first time looking at PRP studies--am I being too optimistic or does this seem very good? Granted, you need to spend up to 2k on the treatment but some people were easily spending $700/yr on Propecia which has to be taken every day and has potential side effects.

Any naysayers and people with evidence that this does not work are especially welcome. Please come forward.

It's your money. You have the right to waste it as you please.

It doesn't work. It doesn't maintain. It just depletes your bank account. I have had this done personally with Dr. Greco, as did a friend of mine. Doesn't work. Did absolutely nothing for me but actually increased shedding.

[kantian]

It's weird that he publishes results showing that it works, and independent (presumably) researchers are also publishing results showing that it works.

When you say it didn't work, did you continue to lose hair at the same rate?

[StayThick]

Yes, and with $1k less in my bank + travel. It literally did nothing. My shedding slightly increased and it did nothing in the form of a positive. I was desperate and willing to try anything. I don't regret it, but would never recommend it or do it again.

Pure scam IMHO.

[Justinian]

I had it with Greco and noticed slightly thicker hair throughout, some thick hairs at my hairline, and a bunch of tiny hairs at my temples. Not a huge difference but I could notice it. My only other treatment was nizoral. I also shed a lot throughout which to me means it was doing something.

[kantian]

Justinian, did you essentially maintain the same amount of hair you had when you had the treatment to 6 months after the treatment?

[StayThick]

I had it with Greco and noticed slightly thicker hair throughout, some thick hairs at my hairline, and a bunch of tiny hairs at my temples. Not a huge difference but I could notice it. My only other treatment was nizoral. I also shed a lot throughout which to me means it was doing something.

You're grasping for straws in your experience with PRP.

What you describe is not worth the $1k+ this treatment is to do. It's just not and I'd bet you would agree. Slightly thick hairs at the hairline? Dude, PRP did not create those. Seriously? Don't let the OP throw away valuable cash. Have him use our experiences as a way to dodge this.

Honestly, to the OP, do what you want...but you have been warned. It is not worth the expense and hassle. The results are no way aesthetically pleasing and very difficult to even notice.

[Justinian]

You're grasping for straws in your experience with PRP.

What you describe is not worth the $1k+ this treatment is to do. It's just not and I'd bet you would agree. Slightly thick hairs at the hairline? Dude, PRP did not create those. Seriously? Don't let the OP throw away valuable cash. Have him use our experiences as a way to dodge this.

Honestly, to the OP, do what you want...but you have been warned. It is not worth the expense and hassle. The results are no way aesthetically pleasing and very difficult to even notice.

It's all relative. 1k isn't that much to me and I don't want to nuke my body to fix my hair.

[Justinian]

Also it was just a two hour drive for me. Way less of a hassle than any other treatment. Multiple treatments are probably better too.

And by thick hairs I meant I have a couple dozen hairs that got much thicker and stand out. Not a cosmetic difference but I can notice it was doing something.

[Justinian]

Justinian, did you essentially maintain the same amount of hair you had when you had the treatment to 6 months after the treatment?

Id say I've regrown a little. Not a lot, but a little that's probably only noticeable to me. Also, remember I was on nizoral which has been proven equal to minoxidil 2% in a study.

[champpy]

Just wanted to give my 2 cents work. I had this done in December. THey told me the full results would be noticeable within 3 months. Im now at 4 months and there have been no benefits at all. Matter of fact, my hair loss has accelerated faster than ever. Cant say for sure it was the PRP, but really fishy timing that my hair loss increased 3 months after the procedure

[Keki]

I want to know why in few years this prp treatment exploded everywhere in the world, cheap money or what? I still have to read a positive reviews with the same regrowth of a decent repsonder of propecia or minox

It's like the ozone therapy, i don't know if it works or not, i will never spend money on that, it's a coincidence no top surgery or researcher use them? I don't think so, maybe it can give you better hairs tho

[kantian]

Most of the people on this forum have said that PRP has done nothing for them or even accelerated their hair loss. Yet, scientific studies consistently show some small effect of PRP. What do you think explains this discrepancy? I'm genuinely curious.

[nofintowin]

I've been doing PRP since January 2015. Did four sessions, one month apart, overall. My last session in early april included ACell. I'm not taking fin / minox. Just doing oils and dermarolling, among other natural things. My regimen hasn't changed since January. The only thing I started doing differently since then was that I started blowdrying my hair. Not sure if the blowdrying is responsible, and it may still be too early to tell, but I feel I've slowly lost hair over the past few months. Definitely don't see any new hairs.

[bigentries]

Most of the people on this forum have said that PRP has done nothing for them or even accelerated their hair loss. Yet, scientific studies consistently show some small effect of PRP. What do you think explains this discrepancy? I'm genuinely curious.

Horrible methodology or outright lying

I put lasers and Nizoral in that list too. "Proven" treatments that lack any sort of anecdotal evidence