Kythera - KYTH-105 (setipiprant), other drug now approved (ATX-101)

[rdawg]

Setitiprant has already been trialled. If it regrew hair as a side effect, you would have already heard about it.

Pretty sure they are taking another approach when it comes to application, Follica is probably involved in some way since I can't see them being too happy with Cotsarelis otherwise

Without insider knowledge I don't think any forum trial is going to be produce something

wasn't it trialled orally? I believe administering it topically at a different dosage could make a huge difference. someone corect me here

[It's2014ComeOnAlready]

wasn't it trialled orally? I believe administering it topically at a different dosage could make a huge difference. someone corect me here

The argument that "they would've seen a result in earlier trials" is pointless. We don't know the proper dosage used for hair loss relative to asthma or allergic rhinitis. Cots had done about 7 years of his own research on this, and Kythera had done 2 years of it's own research with Cots, before deciding to start trials.

[bigentries]

They're using the same application for asthma as MPB; oral delivery. Also, are you saying it won't be effective?

Where do people get it's going to be an oral treatment? I never saw a press release where they explicitly stated it was going to be oral or topical

I don't know if it would be effective. I'm just saying, the method of delivery is still a mystery. Taking it orally as past trials is probably useless, while using it as a topical brings a lot of variables into play

[Swooping]

Where do people get it's going to be an oral treatment? I never saw a press release where they explicitly stated it was going to be oral or topical

I don't know if it would be effective. I'm just saying, the method of delivery is still a mystery. Taking it orally as past trials is probably useless, while using it as a topical brings a lot of variables into play

It will be given orally; http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...tipiprant_.pdf (page 10)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...ck_3.12.15.pdf (page 27)

They handle a perfect strategy in that one especially with such a perfect safety profile of the compound itself. Then again I don't believe in the whole PGD2 hypothesis. But we'll see!

[bigentries]

It will be given orally; http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...tipiprant_.pdf (page 10)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...ck_3.12.15.pdf (page 27)

They handle a perfect strategy in that one especially with such a perfect safety profile of the compound itself. Then again I don't believe in the whole PGD2 hypothesis. But we'll see!

Well, the first link talks about possibilities, but the second document clearly states they are going for an oral treatment

Not really that excited, but again, they could be planning some sort of special oral delivery

I still find it hard to believe Follica let Cotsarelis run away with a potential treatment this easily. I was expecting for them to push their wounding obsession in this treatment too

[KO1]

Does anyone have access to the papers at the bottom of the page?

http://www.kythera.com/products/kyth-105-setipiprant/

[KO1]

Oral is usually better, especially for a preventative medl

[walrus]

Then again I don't believe in the whole PGD2 hypothesis. But we'll see!

You have a problem with the peer-reviewed evidence?

[Swooping]

You have a problem with the peer-reviewed evidence?

Then again I don't believe in the whole PGD2 hypothesis. But we'll see!

You do understand that Garze & Cotsarelis both concur that it might not work and the pathology of AGA might not be based around prostaglandins and work downstream thus be an unimportant factor? After all that is how a hypothesis works.

Anyway if you have in vivo observational evidence on humans then please present it in the form of a double placebo controlled trial? Perhaps I have missed it.

[Arashi]

You have a problem with the peer-reviewed evidence?

Always keep in mind that 'peer reviewed' merely means that some peers read the article, agreed that the methodology made sense and that it's relevant to their journal. It does NOT mean that they actually verified the results, let alone reproduced them.