does topical spironolactone attack dht after first dosage

[dam]

Just a quick question, does topical spironolactone attack dht after first application or does it take month's to reach the hair folicle before it starts to attack.

 

[maximiliandreams]

Yea,it's kinda travelling with airplane with months,preparing for battle....it has reserved a place in a 5 stars hotel ..then in the hotel there would be a naked hair follicle wh***... wainting for him to make action ..dude come one,dumb questions..OFCOURSE !

 

[zb00st]

spironolactone goes in the scalp and it blocks dht as soon as it is absorbed within the skin on application.

 

[israelite]

what else are u using with topical spironolactone

 

[Rocky V]

Yea,it's kinda travelling with airplane with months,preparing for battle....it has reserved a place in a 5 stars hotel ..then in the hotel there would be a naked hair follicle wh***... wainting for him to make action ..dude come one,dumb questions..OFCOURSE !

stop being an *** bro. this is what the forums are for to educate people who don't know anything about hair loss.

all it takes is a smart *** comment like yours to discourage people and make them not want to ask questions ever again.

relax

 

[Mestys]

Another thing to point out is spironolactone does not attack DHT. It in fact competes with androgens (T/DHT etc) by binding to the androgen receptor.

To answer your question, this process should be almost immediate.

 

[maximiliandreams]

Yea,it's kinda travelling with airplane with months,preparing for battle....it has reserved a place in a 5 stars hotel ..then in the hotel there would be a naked hair follicle wh***... wainting for him to make action ..dude come one,dumb questions..OFCOURSE !

stop being an *** bro. this is what the forums are for to educate people who don't know anything about hair loss.

all it takes is a smart *** comment like yours to discourage people and make them not want to ask questions ever again.

relax

I am sorry if i sounded like that,i dont wanted to be an a**h**..but the question is really stupid bro... i would understand if that dude asked when should he expect some results from spironolactone..ok,but ask that questions is stupid... dont wanted to sound like a**h**,just joke.sorry

 

[pazguato]

I loled

 

[dam]

Thanks for the reply fellas i really appreciate it, i am just getting confused with all of these hair loss sites. Some say that topical finasteride can be absorbed through the skin and you can get sides, some say revivogen wont work because it cant be absorbed through the skin others say spironolactone will take months to work and may be absorbed. i have been on finasteride since it came out, i have been on it for over 10 years and have kept most of my hair i have a receding hairline. i have lost some ground over time so i am looking for a little extra punch and if spironolactone competes with androgens (T/DHT etc) by binding to the androgen receptor- thanks MESTYS then i will try it, and the way i figure it if i will be ahead of the game attacking hair loss from both directions. i also use nizoral and have just started minoxidil 1.5 months ago and since then have lost a little bit of ground but i can see tiny baby hairs where there was none before so i will continue to see how it works for a while. i am kinda torn between revivogen or spironolactone, thanks fellas nw2 and still fighting lol

 

[maximiliandreams]

deffinitely spironolactone !

 

[zb00st]

you can add minoxidil too

 

[hairhoper]

Topical spironolactone is unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference. Use the big 2 (finasteride + minoxidil) if you are serious about saving your hair, unless you have incredibly good reasons not to.

Avoid revivogen too, that's unproven & expensive.

 

[Bryan]

Topical spironolactone is unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference.

Have you seen the Italian study which used topical spironolactone to fight male pattern baldness? I think you're exaggerating to say that it's "unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference".

 

[hairhoper]

Nope, please post it.

Edit: Just Googled and this is a quote by yourself from hairlosshelp, about that study from 2001, basically saying it's disappointing. Hardly seems worth mentioning to me - quite the redundant study.

Well, I finally obtained what is apparently the only published study using topical spironolactone for male pattern baldness in the whole world. Unfortunately, it's a little disappointing because it's far from a carefully controlled study. But it's all we have: "Topical Spironolactone in the Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia", R. Bianchini, G. Buzzetti, L. Colombo, Rivista Italiana di Biologia e Medicina, Vol. 6(2) (pp 129-131), 1986.

52 patients completed a year-long study in which they were treated twice daily with a 3% topical spironolactone solution in a vehicle of ethanol, water, and glycerin. They say: "We evaluated hair density at the site treated, according to a conventional rating scale (0 = hair almost absent; 1 = hair very scanty; 2 = hair rather thin; 3 = hair moderately thin), on the basis of clinical assessment and standardized photography. These observations were carried out before, and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. The data obtained were analyzed by the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests".

From a starting score of exactly 1.00, after 6 months it was 1.212 (they claim a probability p<0.01 for this result) and after 12 months it was 1.75 (p< 0.001). That's about it. No hair-counts, trichograms, or hair-shaft diameters; just a somewhat subjective rating of these 52 subjects. However, they do provide before-and-after photographs of a couple of them, and there *is* some interesting hair-growth that you can plainly see; it's similar to those Propecia pictures of good responders that we've all seen on Web sites.

Here are the last few comments in the study: "With S therapy, several of our patients noted regrowth of hair and its long-term administration did not produce side effects or any decrease in blood pressure. To our knowledge, use of topical S in the treatment of AA has never been reported before. In conclusion, we believe that S acts directly as an antagonist of dihydrotestosterone on target tissue. Furthermore, the present study shows the possibility of using a testosterone inhibitory drug without systemic antiandrogenic side effects".

All I know is I have never ever seen a single thread on this forum or any other by people having prolonged success on a treatment where topical spironolactone is their main antiandrogen (or androgen-inhibitor or 5ar-inhibitor or whatever the hell your pedantic *** wants to refer to spironolactone as).

 

[Bryan]

Back some time ago, I actually scanned that study, and posted it for all to see on these hairloss sites; but unfortunately, the site where I had it (Geocities) took away their ability for people to store these things for free, and now it's no longer available. If you live anywhere near a medical library, I recommend that you go pick it up for free, and read it carefully.

In any event, unlike similar newer studies with things like finasteride, dutasteride, and minoxidil (which measured haircounts and weights in a more precise fashion), those doctors _did_ claim to find a statistically significant effect on their patients' hair with the use of topical spironolactone. I think you should keep that in mind, before you say things like "topical spironolactone is unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference". Being that harsh is something you'll probably come to regret.

 

[hairhoper]

You have to admit that a single (dated) study, small study group, a solely subjective opinion and no statistical data is not much to go on though, right?

I reserve the right to be blunt about treatments til they've otherwise proven themselves to be worthy of our attention.

I think that's a healthy attitude and I don't think I will regret it

 

[Bryan]

You have to admit that a single (dated) study, small study group, a solely subjective opinion and no statistical data is not much to go on though, right?

It's been a long time since I've read it, but if I remember correctly, they _do_ have "statistical data" in that study.

I reserve the right to be blunt about treatments til they've otherwise proven themselves to be worthy of our attention.

By the way, there are other studies, too, besides just that one, that showed a beneficial effect of topical spironolactone on male pattern baldness. You should be more careful about talking about things that you know nothing about.

 

[hairhoper]

Again, please post them if so. If there are other studies, why did you only refer to this weak Italian one?

Statistical evidence yet no actual measurements? In what form could that be? In your own words:

No hair-counts, trichograms, or hair-shaft diameters; just a somewhat subjective rating of these 52 subjects

Fact is no-one appears to have used topical spironolactone to any success that I'm aware of.

Advising people that they should use it seems like awful advice to me. I'm far more concerned about people getting ripped-off than the chance I may inadvertently bad-mouth a few old studies.

I'm weighing up what evidence we have to hand. These (old) studies don't appear to be freely available, the one you chose to reference is unconvincing, and there are no success stories to be seen on any of these forums. Do you really expect people to buy this stuff on such a basis?

 

[Bryan]

Again, please post them if so. If there are other studies, why did you only refer to this weak Italian one?

This Italian study is the only one that I've read completely, and have a copy of. The other ones do exist, though.

Statistical evidence yet no actual measurements? In what form could that be? In your own words:

No hair-counts, trichograms, or hair-shaft diameters; just a somewhat subjective rating of these 52 subjects

Here is an actual excerpt from the body of the study:

Materials and methods
[...]
We evaluated hair density at the site treated, according to a conventional rating scale (0 = hair almost absent; 1 = hair very scanty; 2 = hair rather thin; 3 = hair moderately thin), on the basis of clinical assessment and standardized photography. These obversations were carried out before, and after 6 and 12 months of treatment.
The data obtained were analysed by the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests.

Supporting what I said in a previous post that there was information about the statistical analysis in that study, they also provide a table with the following information:

Friedman test: x^2 = 26.606 DF=2 P<0.001
Wilcoxon test:
Initial vs 6 months: z = 2.934 P<0.01
Initial vs 12 months: z = 4.860 P<0.001
6 months vs 12 months: z = 4.623 P<0.001

They also make the following statement in the Discussion section near the end of the study: "With S [spironolactone] therapy, several of our patients noted regrowth of hair and its long-term administration did not produce side effects or any decrease in blood pressure."

Fact is no-one appears to have used topical spironolactone to any success that I'm aware of.

Advising people that they should use it seems like awful advice to me. I'm far more concerned about people getting ripped-off than the chance I may inadvertently bad-mouth a few old studies.

You're aware, I assume, of the numerous studies that tested another topical antiandrogen (RU58841) on balding stumptailed macaques? Those tests were OVERWHELMINGLY successful. Now I myself have stated numerous times that spironolactone isn't as powerful an antiandrogen as RU58841 (spironolactone appears to be about HALF as effective as RU58841), but it goes beyond the pale for you to make the preposterous statement that "topical spironolactone is unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference". Based on purely theoretical considerations AND the aforementioned Italian study, topical spironolactone does make a noticeable difference.