Does anybody remember those graphs? If so...

[junior_senior]

Does anybody remember those graphs of finasteride and minoxidil efficacy over time? If so, and you can find them, that would be great. I'd totally like to take a look at those again.

Cheers.

 

[Petchsky]

The graphs call on the Radio. He is who you seek.

 

[SE-freak]

 

[Petchsky]

The graphs call on the Radio. He is who you seek.

Or the Freak

 

[Bryan]

Hey, who screwed-around with that graph?? It should show hairweights and haircounts from minoxidil that decline faster in the long-term than hairweights and haircounts from finasteride. That's the whole point that should be emphasized: minoxidil is probably a bit better in the short-term, but finasteride is better in the long-term.

One of Tynan's/Radio's (what's with the name change, anyway?) graphs showed that very plainly, but THIS one doesn't.

Bryan

 

[SE-freak]

You are talking about a different graph, Bryan.

 

[Resultsnottypical]

Who did the study on the use of both finasteride and minoxidil? I always thought that was what we were lacking, although the anecdotal evidence showed that using both could completely master hairloss for some individuals, where were no scientific, peer-reviewed studies which showed the benefits of use of both.

Any link to that study?

 

[SE-freak]

Who did the study on the use of both finasteride and minoxidil? I always thought that was what we were lacking, although the anecdotal evidence showed that using both could completely master hairloss for some individuals, where were no scientific, peer-reviewed studies which showed the benefits of use of both.

Any link to that study?

You are probably referring to the second graph. You should see the second graph as a mere presentation of the correlation of different treatments in terms of efficacy and not a literal display of the haircount changes.

 

[SE-freak]

The first graph is slightly misleading, insinuating that minoxidil works better than finasteride over the long run.

minoxidil will outrun the balding process for the first 2 years and produce better results than finasteride. But as the underlying cause is not treated the offset of growth minoxidil provides will go downhill following your deteriorating default(with no minoxidil) hair image.In that sense minoxidil is better at regrowing hair short term.

 

[Bryan]

Who did the study on the use of both finasteride and minoxidil? I always thought that was what we were lacking, although the anecdotal evidence showed that using both could completely master hairloss for some individuals, where were no scientific, peer-reviewed studies which showed the benefits of use of both.

Any link to that study?

The only study like that which took actual haircounts or hairweights of minoxidil and finasteride alone and in combination was an early one done with stumptailed macaques. There have been at least a couple of recent human studies comparing Propecia and Rogaine, but I believe they only evaluated results by comparing before-and-after photographs of the subjects' scalps.

The rationale for the claims being made in the above graph is that they are supported by SEPARATE STUDIES that have been done in the past on minoxidil and finasteride. For example, Vera Price published an excellent minoxidil trial in 1999, and then followed that a year or two later with a finasteride trial. Both of them used exactly the same evaluation procedures for haircounts and hairweights, so I believe it's reasonable to use them to compare the two different treatments, even though finasteride and minoxidil weren't directly compared in one single study.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

The only study like that which took actual haircounts or hairweights of minoxidil and finasteride alone and in combination was an early one done with stumptailed macaques. There have been at least a couple of recent human studies comparing Propecia and Rogaine, but I believe they only evaluated results by comparing before-and-after photographs of the subjects' scalps.

Well, HELL!! I forgot about the following short study, which did indeed measure haircounts in humans using finasteride and minoxidil (the first study is the one I'm talking about):

http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/finasteride-minoxidil.htm

However, the haircounts reported in that graph are obviously in error. The ones reported for the finasteride group are WAAAAAAAAY too high, and are completely out-of-bounds to any other haircounts that have ever been reported in any other finasteride study. I even emailed one of the authors of that study a year or two ago, just to alert him to that problem.

In any event, notice that the authors had essentially the same conclusion as what _we_ have been talking about: topical minoxidil was a little more effective than finasteride in the early going, but finasteride overtook it and surpassed it as time went by.

Bryan

 

[SE-freak]

Bryan, thanks for this material!

 

[Resultsnottypical]

yes, thank you Bryan. As always, a wealth of information and clarification.

 

[Bryan]

The person variously known as Tynan/Radio/Whatever posted something very recently about how the haircount information from that FIRST graph in this thread (which I complained about) is just a reflection of the data I posted previously from the Vera Price studies on minoxidil and finasteride. That post got deleted, but I want to address it anyway:

Yes, on further reflection, you are correct! It is indeed a reasonable reproduction of Price's data on haircounts from those two studies. However, nowadays I tend to place more weight (pun intended) on hairWEIGHTS than I do on hairCOUNTS. And that data comparison still shows that minoxidil weights declined significantly over 96 weeks, whereas finasteride weights actually increased very slightly. It's fascinating to speculate about why there's such a divergence in the effects of those two drugs: one has a more pronounced effect on counts, while the other has a more pronounced effect on weights.

Bryan

 

[Exit]

The person variously known as Tynan/Radio/Whatever posted something very recently about how the haircount information from that FIRST graph in this thread (which I complained about) is just a reflection of the data I posted previously from the Vera Price studies on minoxidil and finasteride. That post got deleted, but I want to address it anyway:

Yes, on further reflection, you are correct! It is indeed a reasonable reproduction of Price's data on haircounts from those two studies. However, nowadays I tend to place more weight (pun intended) on hairWEIGHTS than I do on hairCOUNTS. And that data comparison still shows that minoxidil weights declined significantly over 96 weeks, whereas finasteride weights actually increased very slightly. It's fascinating to speculate about why there's such a divergence in the effects of those two drugs: one has a more pronounced effect on counts, while the other has a more pronounced effect on weights.

Bryan

Okey dokey.

Not sure why that got deleted

One other point worth mentioning although the graph was accurate at its know data points, the smooth line drawn through 0 - 48 - 96 is maybe misleading. At week 96 minoxidils hair count may actually still be on the way up, three data points (including zero) may not be enough resolution to show this (see example below)