Is there any evidence supporting topical spironolactone?

[twenty.five]

Is there any evidence to support using spironolactone topically? Anything to suggest that it can actually penetrate the scalp and that it can work to reduce testosterone/prevent conversion to DHT or whatever it's supposed to be doing?

 

[twenty.five]

Has anyone been recommended spironolactone by their doctor or is just something people do on their own?

 

[knowingyou]

My doctors did not recommand topical, because it is lack of evidence that it helps by hairloss. I have tried topical spironolactone cream from Dr Lee for more than 12 months, it did nothing for me, or just reduce the itch a bit from time to time.

 

[twenty.five]

I couldn't find a single convincing study in support of its effectiveness.

I guess it's all just BS then. Shame.

 

[twhacker888]

I just started using topical spironolactone 5% on 9/19/2011. I will keep you updated if I notice any less hair falling out.

 

[Bryan]

I couldn't find a single convincing study in support of its effectiveness.

I guess it's all just BS then. Shame.

Haven't you seen the study done by Italian doctors that I've posted several times in the past? They claimed to find a beneficial effect on male pattern baldness from topical spironolactone.

 

[twenty.five]

I couldn't find a single convincing study in support of its effectiveness.

I guess it's all just BS then. Shame.

Haven't you seen the study done by Italian doctors that I've posted several times in the past? They claimed to find a beneficial effect on male pattern baldness from topical spironolactone.

It was hardly convincing enough to justify the reliance people have placed on using it. So many people use it and accept it as effective, and yet there's only a single Italian study that suggests that it works. There are countless substances that have a single study showing growth promotion -- it's not all that unusual or impressive.

The selling page on this website for topical spironolactone talks about it like it is absolutely proven to work, but it's not.

 

[Nene]

I think it's BS as well. I suspect the same with folligen or any copper peptides, prox n, revivogen and all these other things that people spend a fortune on. One or two obscure studies that Bryan cites just isn't good enough for me. Modern day snake oil imo. I've never heard of anyone having success on just one of those products, it's always in combo with proven treatments. My hair has been stable for a while now with finasteride and minoxidil, I added folligen and I've seen 0 benefits.

 

[twhacker888]

I guess I'm just to afraid to try finasteride so trying spironolactone cream seemed like the next logical thing.

 

[Bryan]

Haven't you seen the study done by Italian doctors that I've posted several times in the past? They claimed to find a beneficial effect on male pattern baldness from topical spironolactone.

It was hardly convincing enough to justify the reliance people have placed on using it. So many people use it and accept it as effective, and yet there's only a single Italian study that suggests that it works.

There's more than just the single Italian showing that topical spironolactone works. There's also an admittedly obscure one from a medical journal that found beneficial results, too, against male pattern baldness (don't have the referenced study easily at hand at the moment, but I could probably find it with some searching). There was also the one that Dr. Proctor found being passed around by another doctor at a medical conference he attended a few years ago; the doctor had also found topical spironolactone useful against male pattern baldness, and had actually done haircounts on his subjects, to document its success.

Needless to say, there are also studies with laboratory animals showing that topical spironolactone _does_ have a legitimate effect when used as a topical antiandrogen; I wouldn't expect it to be as powerful as (say) topical RU58841, but it's certainly better than nothing at all.

 

[twenty.five]

Haven't you seen the study done by Italian doctors that I've posted several times in the past? They claimed to find a beneficial effect on male pattern baldness from topical spironolactone.

It was hardly convincing enough to justify the reliance people have placed on using it. So many people use it and accept it as effective, and yet there's only a single Italian study that suggests that it works.

There's more than just the single Italian showing that topical spironolactone works. There's also an admittedly obscure one from a medical journal that found beneficial results, too, against male pattern baldness (don't have the referenced study easily at hand at the moment, but I could probably find it with some searching). There was also the one that Dr. Proctor found being passed around by another doctor at a medical conference he attended a few years ago; the doctor had also found topical spironolactone useful against male pattern baldness, and had actually done haircounts on his subjects, to document its success.

That's a bit of a weird one. It's hardly convincing to hear about a study that a particular doctor (does this Proctor sell topical spironolactone?) claims to have seen at a conference. In fact, it's downright dodgy sounding.

Needless to say, there are also studies with laboratory animals showing that topical spironolactone _does_ have a legitimate effect when used as a topical antiandrogen; I wouldn't expect it to be as powerful as (say) topical RU58841, but it's certainly better than nothing at all.

I would be interested in reading those studies. I have not found any.

 

[Bryan]

That's a bit of a weird one. It's hardly convincing to hear about a study that a particular doctor (does this Proctor sell topical spironolactone?)...

Only as part of Proxiphen. spironolactone is one of Proxiphen's numerous ingredients.

...claims to have seen at a conference. In fact, it's downright dodgy sounding.

I'm sorry you think it's "dodgy", but he's talked about that study for years on alt.baldspot. I've mentioned it, too.

Needless to say, there are also studies with laboratory animals showing that topical spironolactone _does_ have a legitimate effect when used as a topical antiandrogen; I wouldn't expect it to be as powerful as (say) topical RU58841, but it's certainly better than nothing at all.

I would be interested in reading those studies. I have not found any.

I'll see if I can find that second one I mentioned.

 

[abcdefg]

You know I just started spironolactone myself although I bought it from a shady place I will probably never buy from again but that is a different story. I was wondering about how good spironolactone is myself since I see tons of people claiming it works well and that Dr. Lee proscribed it for a long time for hair loss also. Does it stop all androgens not just DHT from binding to receptor sites on the hair follicles? How does testosterone bind differently then say DHT are the molecules different sizes?
Its probably not worth asking I guess since its probably super complicated and we probably do not know the answers to a lot of questions involved with it.

 

[Bryan]

...Dr. Lee proscribed it for a long time for hair loss also.

Dr. Lee proscribed it for hair loss?? :dunno:

From my Thorndike-Barnhart Desk Dictionary:

proscribe, v., -scribed, -scribing.
1. prohibit as wrong or dangerous; condemn.
2. put outside the protection of the law; outlaw.
3. forbid to come into a certain place; banish.

 

[twenty.five]

I'm sorry you think it's "dodgy", but he's talked about that study for years on alt.baldspot. I've mentioned it, too.

I'm sure you can understand why I'm skeptical about this product when the best "evidence" that can be cited to support it is a study that has never been seen, but only referred to, and that the person who claims it exists is someone who has a vested interest in convincing people that it works.

People seem to assume it works just because (a) lots of people on forums are using it and (b) it works orally.

Even if it does have some effect, it would undoubtedly be a very mild effect, so is it really worth applying a (relatively) expensive, smelly cream to one's head every day for only a very small benefit?

I'll see if I can find that second one I mentioned.

Anything?

 

[Bryan]

I'm sorry you think it's "dodgy", but he's talked about that study for years on alt.baldspot. I've mentioned it, too.

I'm sure you can understand why I'm skeptical about this product when the best "evidence" that can be cited to support it is a study that has never been seen, but only referred to, and that the person who claims it exists is someone who has a vested interest in convincing people that it works.

What the hell "product" are you talking about?? :dunno: I don't know that the doctor who did the study had any such "product" at all that he was selling.

People seem to assume it works just because (a) lots of people on forums are using it and (b) it works orally.

Spironolactone has been proven to work as a topical antiandrogen; not just in the Italian study which I've already mentioned, and the other more obscure one which I've also mentioned, and the one being passed around at the medical conference which I've also mentioned, but also in a number of experiments with laboratory animals (although obviously not for male pattern baldness in the animals).

Even if it does have some effect, it would undoubtedly be a very mild effect, so is it really worth applying a (relatively) expensive, smelly cream to one's head every day for only a very small benefit?

I'm not sure how you'd define "a very mild effect". As I've mentioned a number of times already on hairloss sites, experiments with topical spironolactone on hamsters show a net effect on underlying sebaceous glands that's about HALF the effect that you get with topical RU58841; and it's a hell of a lot less expensive than RU58841, too. Should that effect be called "very mild"? I don't know...

I'll see if I can find that second one I mentioned.

Anything?

Give me some more time on that one.

 

[twenty.five]

By product, I meant topical spironolactone. And I was referring to the fact that Dr Proctor alleges the existence of a study proving the effectiveness of topical spironolactone, which you admitted that he uses in the products he sells. I cannot imagine one reason why, if a study actually exists and actually demonstrates that topical spironolactone is effective, that that study is not readily available. It seems pretty damn obvious to me that a study nobody has even seen cannot be relied upon in an argument to demonstrate that topical spironolactone works. It's laughable.

And you keep referring to this evidence from animal studies, yet you seem to be having difficult finding them.

Bryan, do you receive any benefit from promoting this stuff? Do you work for hairlosstalk or something? The available evidence is so weak and yet you are so adament that I am having trouble accepting that you honestly believe this.

 

[Bryan]

By product, I meant topical spironolactone. And I was referring to the fact that Dr Proctor alleges the existence of a study proving the effectiveness of topical spironolactone, which you admitted that he uses in the products he sells. I cannot imagine one reason why, if a study actually exists and actually demonstrates that topical spironolactone is effective, that that study is not readily available. It seems pretty damn obvious to me that a study nobody has even seen cannot be relied upon in an argument to demonstrate that topical spironolactone works. It's laughable.

A "study that nobody has ever seen"?? Huh??? LOTS of people have seen some of them. Not the one that was floating around the medical conference (except for other doctors, of course), but certainly many of the other ones. In fact, I used to post the full contents of that Italian study of topical spironolactone for male pattern baldness, until Geocities stopped letting us post such scans a while back. I've posted that full study a BUNCH of times over the years, on hairloss sites!

And you keep referring to this evidence from animal studies, yet you seem to be having difficult finding them.

HUH??? Again I ask you: what the hell are you talking about?? :dunno:

I have copies of all those animal studies right here in front of me, in my Study Stack. I don't have any "difficulty" at all in finding them. They're right here in front of me (in stacks of hundreds of various studies of all kinds).

Bryan, do you receive any benefit from promoting this stuff?

No.

Do you work for hairlosstalk or something?

No.

The available evidence is so weak and yet you are so adament that I am having trouble accepting that you honestly believe this.

What evidence do you think is "weak"? Everything I've posted on these sites is the TRUTH. You and I (and others) may have differing opinions on things when it comes to certain questionable issues, but I've always told you the TRUTH when it comes to facts.

 

[twenty.five]

Your are off your nut. Totally incapable of keeping your story straight. Thanks but no thanks.

Clearly, when I talked about the study that no one has seen, I was referring to the one you said that Doctor Proctor has been talking about at conferences. And now suddenly you have a stack of research papers supporting your point. That seems like something that should've been mentioned a few posts ago. Well, now I have a stack of papers in front of me too, and they prove that spironolactone doesn't work and that I am a horse. So now there is proof that I am a horse, and no one should question that.

All I've asked you to do is show me the studies, not refer to them, not mention them... You haven't shown me a single study, and now you're acting surprised that I'm not convinced? You saying that they exist and that they support topical spironolactone's effectiveness may be good enough for some people but it doesn't quite cut it for me.

 

[Bryan]

Your are off your nut. Totally incapable of keeping your story straight. Thanks but no thanks.

Clearly, when I talked about the study that no one has seen, I was referring to the one you said that Doctor Proctor has been talking about at conferences.

It certainly wasn't "clear" which of the studies you were talking about before. Neither do I know if Dr. Proctor has ever talked about the one that you just now specified at conferences. I've only seen him talk about it on hairloss sites.

And now suddenly you have a stack of research papers supporting your point. That seems like something that should've been mentioned a few posts ago.

Why? I'm an old-timer here, and you're very new here. I'm sure there are a great many things about hairloss which you haven't (yet) seen me mention, or talk about at all. Yes, I have copies of HUNDREDS of studies that are all related to hairloss in various ways. Some of them are even related to the effects of topical spironolactone!

All I've asked you to do is show me the studies, not refer to them, not mention them... You haven't shown me a single study, and now you're acting surprised that I'm not convinced?

As I've already told you, I used to have scans of several studies which I posted on hairloss sites all the time, but once Geocities stopped allowing that, I no longer had access to doing it. How can I now "show you the studies", without referring to them or even mentioning them? :dunno:

You obviously have a great deal to learn, especially when it comes to technical issues that have to do with the way that antiandrogens and 5a-reductase inhibitors (spironolactone, RU58841, fatty acids, and other similar substances) work in the human body and scalp.

You saying that they exist and that they support topical spironolactone's effectiveness may be good enough for some people but it doesn't quite cut it for me.

Okay. I can't twist your arm and MAKE you believe what I've been telling you, but maybe your trust in what I say will eventually come with time.