Why my doctor won't use ACell

[NTMANNN]

Cost??? No real controlled studies in its use for hair loss/HT's???

Those are good concerns. I guess I assumed costs would be paid off by the consumer, though the initial investment might be substantial (how much does one of those PRP machines cost?). And if the doctor doesn't believe in the science, is it ethical to invest in it and pass off that cost to their clients?

I'm all for a controlled, FDA-approved study. Financially speaking, it would be wise for Acell as a company to do this because if Hitzig's/Cooley's results can be "officially" duplicated, more doctors might jump on board and Acell would BANK. I'm gonna assume/hope they're already doing this.

[RichardDawkins]

Ok then, lets stop all experimenting and tick with traditional stuff. I mean no one here needs Evolutions in the hair restoration field anyways.

I give Histogen etc a call to stop their stuff immediately because we need studies RIGHT now but on the other hand the people who want studies dont want them..... Paradox

[UK_]

I should have stated no real "completed" controlled studies yet lol

Bernstein clinic is currently beginning a phase I into plucking hair w/ Acell/PRP.

Has anyone noticed how quick cats recover from wounds? They're itching away a few days later even from bad wounds, they must have some powerful ECM or something.

I dont understand the lack of progress and urgency in this sector anyway, economically it just does not make sense, just look at how successful products like Propecia/Minox have been, even Alpecin, the caffeine shampoo literally exploded across Europe, millions of people are buying this stuff, dont people wanna make money? lol.

[RichardDawkins]

Thats simple to answer : Because we hairloss sufferer dont DEMAND it.

Till today there are still guys who went to dubios clinics for a 1 Dollar per Graft micromotor FUE or other people who go willingly to a FUT strip party to get things DONE.

[UK_]

Thats simple to answer : Because we hairloss sufferer dont DEMAND it.

Till today there are still guys who went to dubios clinics for a 1 Dollar per Graft micromotor FUE or other people who go willingly to a FUT strip party to get things DONE.

If a shampoo containing something as common and simple as caffeine can produce such an uproar in the "hair cosmetic market" then just imagine what something that is even slightly better than minox could do - it just boggles the mind really - I think there may be something lacking in this industry, some dynamic other industries have a' plenty - you dont see the same competitive drive between smaller fragmented companies as you do in mainstream biotech - which is experiencing an explosion in output because of such conditions.

Biotech progress seems to be feeding on itself and getting faster year on year, the same cannot be said for treatments in this industry, which is why we keep hearing the same old "another 5 years, another 5 years", it could be a lack of demand , but I doubt it - everyone knows with the right reach and the right product a hair loss cure would sell as fast as a cure for any of the major diseases, it's the amount of companies working on something, there is no "race to the finish line". The reason I say this is that even with Dr Cooley et al coming forward and stating that they HAVE literally taken a plucked hair and grown/regrown in recipient + donor... only a handful of doctors, researchers and investors have come forward to research it and improve on the technique - why? The last mainstream publication in terms of progress was Follicas "stem cells in bald scalps" thats it - even then - still silence from within the industry.

[Dr. Lindsey]

Because controlled scientific studies done in a reproducible manner have not been published.

Anectdotal results, whether from ECM proteins, laser light, and dietary herbs, are of little use until scientifically proven. That's not to say one can't go out and spend money on them and possibly get a result...one can. But until its shown to have some effect for good, in scientifically done studies, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal its all guess work.

Most doctors have large egos and would love to publish ground-breaking scientific information in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. So far lasers have been around a decade and I have yet to see a peer reviewed journal show a clinical result from them, hense I don't offer it. BUT, others do, and some people feel that they had success. Unfortunately in any given week I see 5 patients who have spent what they'd consider a fortune on unproven technology and all they have to show for it is a depleted bank account, not hair.

Finally, in the 4 years that I was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, most of my research was on the use of extracellular matrix proteins to repair facial defects. I would venture to guess that that makes me more knowledgeable about ECM than most folks, having published a number of papers on their use and having won a grant and Triological society research award for the topic, and being the first to report gene therapy to repair facial defects--in the world.

While I do not do basic science research now that I'm not at a university, I would say that to date, I've seen no evidence to suggest that ECM's have merit in hair surgery for the "average" patient. I do strongly support and look forward to scientific investigation into their potential help, but will refrain from offering it until the science is more suggestive of a clinical result.

For the record though, in the brief snippets that I've seen of Dr. Cooley's work, I do think he is on to something and I look forward to seeing his work continue and hopefully seeing these technologies change our field for the better.

William H. Lindsey MD FACS

[Gubter_87]

One thing I do not understand is why I cannot find a clinical peer reviewed study on A-cell anywhere, yet it is still approved by the FDA for human use?

Should not the study that the approval has been based on have been made public??

[Winston]

I must caution those who believe Acell should be the standard of care. Its way too early to draw such a conclusion from the available data. The field of medicine is littered with thousands of “breakthrough remedies” that end up in the dustbin, having either failed the test of time, or worse, caused harm.

There are three ways to approach new ideas. One is to develop them yourself in the quest to find a better way, the next is to eagerly adopt new but unproven ideas, sometimes for profit, and the third is to remain skeptical, replicating results for yourself, and only cautiously adopt these ideas into daily practice. I’ve been in the first and third groups, but never the second. Dr. Cooley’s work is excellent, and his reported results are exciting. I’m sufficiently intrigued to begin my own trials with Acell, and many other docs will do the same, but only when many have demonstrated positive results in varied circumstances should a product or technique be widely adopted.

Also, the benefits of Acell in strip excision scars, FUE scars, and in conjunction with plucked hair graft survival are different and still need lots of work.

So in my opinion, your surgeon is appropriately skeptical of Acell. I would choose him over someone who blindly adopted new approaches. As I like to stress, if your surgeon is not able to produce excellent results without Acell, he or she will not have excellent results with Acell. Only when the basics are mastered can adjunctive products enhance the final results.

Great post Dr. Haber. There is too much mixed information about the Acell to choose a hair transplant doctor based on whether he uses it or not. It is still unproven by most standards and I do think some doctors are using it just to say that they are. Thanks for your insight!

[Jotronic]

One of the most laughable and contemptible things I've seen, recently, must be this (on Cole's site):

I think that with the advent of Acell the average patient can expect to.......wait a minute. What the..?

[Tracy C]

Dr. Cooley’s work is excellent, and his reported results are exciting. I’m sufficiently intrigued to begin my own trials with Acell, and many other docs will do the same, but only when many have demonstrated positive results in varied circumstances should a product or technique be widely adopted.

I wasn't sure about what to think of this Acell stuff when I first read about it. Now I am sufficiently intrigued to ask my hair restoration doctor about it when I have my next follow up.