Dave001
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 0
"Fluridil, a rationally designed topical agent for androgenetic alopecia: [three years after the] first clinical experience"
It has been more than three years since the publication of the first and only fluridil trial (if one can call it that):
Sovak, M., A. L. Seligson, et al. (2002). "Fluridil, a Rationally Designed Topical Agent for Androgenetic Alopecia: First Clinical Experience." Dermatologic Surgery 28(8): 678-685.
One might wonder if a consensus concerning the effectiveness of fluridil has been reached within the medical community in the roughly three years following its introduction. Interestingly, the mere mention of fluridil is almost completely absent from the literature. A search of MEDLINE using the keyword "fluridil" yields only the initial 2002 trial.
I was able to find a *single* article that mentioned the word "fluridil" by searching the full text of all articles in ScienceDirect published after 2002. Here is the relevant text from that article:
"A topical anti-androgen, fluridil has recently been rationally developed for use in male androgenetic alopecia. It is designed to be locally metabolized, not systemically resorbable, and degradable into inactive metabolites without antiandrogenic activity [34]. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that patients using topical fluridil had an increase in the anagen to telogen ratio, and the maximum attainable effect is achieved within the first 90 days of daily use. No side effects on libido and sexual performances have been found. Nevertheless, a longer study is required to further investigate fluridil's long-term safety and effectiveness in male androgenetic alopecia."
That's from the section entitled "Future drug development: topical anti-androgens" in the recent review article by Sinclair et al:
Sinclair, R. D. (2005). "Male androgenetic alopecia (Part II)." The Journal of Men's Health & Gender 2(1): 38.
It's funny that the author wrote "fluridil has recently been rationally developed," especially considering the title of the fluridil study. What about the development process of fluridil was so rational that its "rational development" deserves special recognition? Are most drugs developed irrationally? ;-)
I can only imagine the messages that will follow:
It was interesting that Sinclair, in the review article referenced above, noted that a change in hair density of at least 20% is often necessary before a difference becomes noticeable from photographs taken at baseline.
It has been more than three years since the publication of the first and only fluridil trial (if one can call it that):
Sovak, M., A. L. Seligson, et al. (2002). "Fluridil, a Rationally Designed Topical Agent for Androgenetic Alopecia: First Clinical Experience." Dermatologic Surgery 28(8): 678-685.
One might wonder if a consensus concerning the effectiveness of fluridil has been reached within the medical community in the roughly three years following its introduction. Interestingly, the mere mention of fluridil is almost completely absent from the literature. A search of MEDLINE using the keyword "fluridil" yields only the initial 2002 trial.
I was able to find a *single* article that mentioned the word "fluridil" by searching the full text of all articles in ScienceDirect published after 2002. Here is the relevant text from that article:
"A topical anti-androgen, fluridil has recently been rationally developed for use in male androgenetic alopecia. It is designed to be locally metabolized, not systemically resorbable, and degradable into inactive metabolites without antiandrogenic activity [34]. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that patients using topical fluridil had an increase in the anagen to telogen ratio, and the maximum attainable effect is achieved within the first 90 days of daily use. No side effects on libido and sexual performances have been found. Nevertheless, a longer study is required to further investigate fluridil's long-term safety and effectiveness in male androgenetic alopecia."
That's from the section entitled "Future drug development: topical anti-androgens" in the recent review article by Sinclair et al:
Sinclair, R. D. (2005). "Male androgenetic alopecia (Part II)." The Journal of Men's Health & Gender 2(1): 38.
It's funny that the author wrote "fluridil has recently been rationally developed," especially considering the title of the fluridil study. What about the development process of fluridil was so rational that its "rational development" deserves special recognition? Are most drugs developed irrationally? ;-)
I can only imagine the messages that will follow:
- "I used fluridil for two whole months but my hair loss continued to rapidly progress."[/*:m:20b40]
- "It improved the quality of my hair after three months."[/*:m:20b40]
It was interesting that Sinclair, in the review article referenced above, noted that a change in hair density of at least 20% is often necessary before a difference becomes noticeable from photographs taken at baseline.
