Might Kerastem Be Available Soon In America?

[nameless]

Check out this link:

http://kerastem.com/kerastem-completes-enrollment-in-us-phase-ii-hair-growth-clinical-trial/

The Kerastem article I provided a link for indicates that Kerastem completed dosing for all patients on September 23, 2016. The patients are to be monitored for 12 months. Those 12 months are almost completed. This is a phase 2 study.

If the 21st Century Cures Act has finally become law some treatments will only have to complete 2 studies and if that is the case for Kerastem then it could come to market sometime in 2018, if it's safe and effective.

 

[br1]

I thought it was common sense that Kerastem does not work?

 

[nameless]

I thought it was common sense that Kerastem does not work?

I'm not 100% sure of that. There are reasons to believe it SHOULD work.

1. Kerastem is basically a fat stem cell treatment with some other things added.

2. Yale University established that the signals from fat cells are all that is required to make hair grow. Yale University (and other research groups) also established that the fat layer in skin decreases as people age, which should in turn cause a reduction in the the amount of signaling from fat cells to the follicles as we age. Kerastem basically adds more of the signaling from fat cells to the patients scalp by adding more fat to the patient's scalp. It seems like this should result in some growth.

3. A couple other studies have been publicized demonstrating that fat cells grow hair on people.

I think there's something peculiar going on with the Kerastem situation. I've read stories by people indicating that overseas Kerastem has worked on some people but not on other people. This makes me think that perhaps some of the overseas clinics might not be doing the treatment consistently correctly, which could explain why it didn't work on some people.

The FDA is the gold standard for efficacy. I'm reserving judgment until I read the FDA trial results.

 

[nameless]

Here is a study indicating that fat injections do grow hair. It's not the exact treatment as Kerastem but it's similar to Kerastem. Both use fat cells as the basis of treatment.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3984770/injecting-fat-scalp-cure-baldness/

 

[nameless]

Another study indicating that fat cells improve hair coverage:

https://www.dovepress.com/hair-foll...anced-adipose-tra-peer-reviewed-article-SCCAA

 

[nameless]

And this looks like another study demonstrating hair improvement with fat cell injection:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352587817300050

 

[nameless]

There is NOT ONE study demonstrating a lack of efficacy for hair growth when using fat cell injections. Not one. But there are a handfull of studies demonstrating hair improvement in a high percentage of patients who got fat cell injections. The only evidence against fat cells as a treatment for hair loss is the anecdotal evidence from a half dozen or so website posters who traveled overseas to get Kerastem.

Are we 100% sure that all of the overseas clinics are performing Kerastem properly on a consistent basis? Perhaps not.

Or maybe other fat cell treatments work but Kerastem doesn't work for some reason. I don't know. But I do know that other studies involving fat cell hair loss treatments produce positive results and Kerastem is also a fat cell treatment for hair loss.

I also know that Yale University says that the signals from fat cells are all that is required to grow hair and your fat cell signals are reduced as you age because your fat layer gets thinner. I think that by adding more fat cells to your scalp you would increase the amount of fat signals in your scalp. Kerastem adds more fat cells to your scalp.

I think we should reserve judgment until we see the FDA results for Kerastem.

 

[buckthorn]

f*****g Jesus, not this sh*t again. @nameless - I will cut off your love handle and inject it into your scalp FOR FREE. @Dante92 and I would get much joy out of doing so.

 

[Jk1]

could this same adipose fat be the reason scalp massage works ? in this study beloe they mention reducing tension on the skin increases adipose skin cells ! and as we now know increases hair growth ! scalp massage would loosen the skin over time and decreases pressure in scalp due to increased lypmatic drainage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727687/

 

[nameless]

Who cares? It's a scam. They started selling it before they decided to trial it LOL
And no one has reported positive anecdotal evidence.

I'm not strongly convinced by anecdotal results, although I have seen both positive and negative anecdotal reports with overseas Kerastem.

I AM very interested in study results. I have seen positive study results from fat cell treatments, and I have posted those positive studies in this thread.

Regarding your statement that they're selling Kerastem treatment w/o trials - the other countries where it's being sold don't require FDA trials. They're following the laws of those countries. FAT cells injections are legal in those countries so they aren't doing anything wrong. And especially since there haven't been trials in those countries that's more proof that we can't really assess if they're doing it correctly on a consistent basis.

I will wait for US FDA trial results to make my judgment.

BTW if the FDA trials produce 40+ percent improvement with Kerastem in almost all test subjects will you shrug and ignore the treatment despite those excellent FDA trial results?

 

[nameless]

f*****g Jesus, not this sh*t again. @nameless - I will cut off your love handle and inject it into your scalp FOR FREE. @Dante92 and I would get much joy out of doing so.

I don't know what to make of Kerastem yet. All of the bad evidence I've seen about Kerastem is anecdotal evidence involving overseas Kerastem clinics. But I've also seen bonafide studies involving fat cells that are contain very good results. And when push comes to shove Kerastem is a fat cell treatment. Remember in those overseas clinics where Kerastem is having unreliable results fat injections were already legal when they started marketing the treatment so they didn't do clinical trials. And since there were no trials that means trial protocols weren't established. I don't know what to make of Kerasem so I'm sort of sitting on the fence until I see FDA trial results.

BTW what would you do Buckthorn *if* the FDA trials produce 40%+ regrowth in virtually all patients? There's only one more month until the phase 2 is completed.

 

[nameless]

Of course not LOL Why would I? Do you have studies suggesting that Kerastem can achieve that?

Why can't Kerastem quantify what their procedure does? Why won't they provide evidence? Hard data? Too busy selling snake oil at $5k+ a pop?

Oh, and that procedure SCARS - scars on the abdomen. What they are doing is worse than snake oil, because snake oil usually doesn't leave permanent physical injury. It's absolutely ridiculous, even more so than PRP (which itself is absolutely outrageous).

1) No I'm not aware of Kerastem studies establishing 40%+ improvement with Kerastem. And I don't know what to make of Kerastem YET.

2) The FDA will make them quantify their procedure and provide photographic evidence. We're going to get to the bottom of these questions and other questions soon. The phase 2 study ends in 1 month. Soon we'll have definitive proof one way or the other.

I don't have a dislike limit. And there's no reason to give you a dislike in this case. You might be right. I'm also aware that some posters went overseas and paid big $ for Kerastem and got nothing for their money. You might be right that Kerastem simply doesn't work. But there is also the possibility that the overseas clinics performing the treatment didn't do things correctly. Each clinic may be doing different versions of Kerastem. There weren't even clinical trials in those countries. The US trials will nail proper procedures down *if* the treatment works.

I agree with you about PRP.

I wonder if Kerastem will announce phase 2 results at the 2017 Hair Loss Congress.

 

[nameless]

we have been through all the fat cell discussions hundrets of times during the last 3 years or so.
yes, fat cells are beneficial for hair. yes, PRP is also beneficial for hair. yes, laser helmets are also beneficial for hair. yes, saw palmetto is also nice, and emu oil does help too.
there are thousands of things which show to be beneficial for hair, but the results are either negligible or only temporary.

fat cells is not the solution to all of this. and no, tsuji, follica or replicel don't depend on the fat cells present in your scalp.
fat cells is only one small part which can contribute to new hair growth but it's not like we all have lost all our fat reserves in the scalp and there is no growth signaling now anymore and the scalp environment is totally unhealthy for new treatments like tsuji.

the whole fat cell story is just a dead end. we know that by now.
it isn't worth the time bothering, when tsuji and others are on the horizon.

I don't know what to make of Kerastem yet. I do know that we have seen recent reports of success with other fat cell treatments and Kerastem is a fat cell treatment. The posters who got no benefit when they tried Kerastem flew to countries where they did not even do clinical trials to establish trial protocols. For all I know each Kerastem clinic has its own individual version of Kerastem and they aren't really following a universal protocol to the letter.

If the FDA trials for Kerastem produce positive results that will nail down a universal protocol to follow.

The phase 2 FDA trial is completed next month. If the results are 40%+ increase in hair coverage for almost all patients will you figure the results are a scam and ignore the treatment?

 

[nameless]

even if a trial ever shows that there is some statistically significant increase in hair count, that doesn't mean anything for a longterm basis. the results in such a case are probably just temporary, for 1 year max.
and no study will verify the remaining regrowth after 1 year, so such data will never see the surface.

it's not like the fat cells are an endless reservoir of growth factors or vitamins. this fat doesn't profilate on its own.

fat cells don't solve the underlying cause of hairloss, and they also can't create de-novo hair follicles from scratch.
so where there is bald skin, there won't grow anything with just injecting fat or prp crap.

and i'm sure that if follica's or tsuji's method work, it will also work on completely fat-less scalp.

it's time to accept that reality.

I think I will wait for results from phase 2 of the FDA clinical trial to form a conclusion about Kerastem.

If it produces even 20% more regrowth that will be great because then it will probably make it into the marketplace and we can use it in combo with replicel or Follica and it might enhance their results The more available treatments the better because they can be combined for potential better results.

 

[Jk1]

could this same adipose fat be the reason scalp massage works ? in this study beloe they mention reducing tension on the skin increases adipose skin cells ! and as we now know increases hair growth ! scalp massage would loosen the skin over time and decreases pressure in scalp due to increased lypmatic drainage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727687/

why wait for fat injections to get Adipogenesis? when you can mechanically get the same effect from scalp massage, i pasted this interesting bit from this study:

Several studies have investigated the effects of mechanical forces on adipogenesis in vitro because it is increasingly being understood that various adipose tissue cells, including adipocytes and preadipocytes, are mechanosensitive and mechanoresponsive. Different kinds of mechanical forces loaded on stem cells, and preadipocytes and adipocytes show totally different effect on adipogenesis. A recent study showed that when mature adipocytes (ie, 12 days after induction of differentiation) undergo 120% uniaxial static stretching for 72 hours, the MAPK/ERK kinase signaling pathway is activated, and adipocyte hypertrophy ensues.36 However, when mouse preadipocyte 3T3-L1 cells undergo uniaxial cyclic stretching (130%, 1 Hz, for 15 or 45 hours), adipogenic differentiation is inhibited.34 In general, static stretching promotes adipogenesis, whereas dynamic mechanical forces such as cyclic stretching or vibration and static compression inhibit adipogenesis. Different signaling pathways are involved in these phenomena.

And the recent scalp massage study showing it works.. now we know it may work by increasing adipose fat cells like these fat injection studies...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740347/

tandardized Scalp Massage Results in Increased Hair Thickness by Inducing Stretching Forces to Dermal Papilla Cells in the Subcutaneous Tissue
Taro Koyama, PhD, MD,

a,b Kazuhiro Kobayashi, MD,a Takanori Hama,c Kasumi Murakami,c and Rei Ogawa, PhD, MDb
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►


Go to:
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we evaluated the effect of scalp massage on hair in Japanese males and the effect of stretching forces on human dermal papilla cells in vitro. Methods:

 

[cocona]

Enjoy. ^_^

Kerastem's UK study:

Article on study on their site: http://kerastem.com/kerastem-uk-hair-growth-data-published/

Url of kerastem study: https://www.dovepress.com/hair-foll...anced-adipose-tra-peer-reviewed-article-SCCAA


Results:

So mean increase of 31.2 hairs/cm^2 or an average of 23.2% more hairs.


Some pictures from the paper:

Vertex treated:

Midscalp treated:

Vertex Treated:

Global treatement:

 

[cocona]

I am just a purveyor of information. Draw whatever conclusions you wish.

Honestly I think the more meaningful metric is increase in hairs/cm^2

 

[Tano1]

The change is so insignificant...

I wish we could figure this sh*t out already. This is nice research, but man... We're due for something better by now. Decades of fucked up botched jobs and temporary/insignificant growth and mice studies are old already.

 

[shookwun]

i know. i'm not blaming you. i'm just so fed up by this crappy kerastem and similar fat cell studies which are all useless, and if doctors knowingly offer such a treatment then they turn the whole thing into a scam.
also, at this point we have no reason at all to believe in unproven growth numbers. studies are being twisted and faked all the time, it's nothing unusual and in 99% of the time it's impossible to proof any wrongdoing or criminal intent. it's not like anybody is able to prove they were lying with the numbers.
the only way to prove it is to offer shaved before/after macro pics of the scalp including scalp tattoos, so that others can count the new hairs themselves. but of course, this kind of proof will never happen as it would expose the faked study.

all we have are faked growth numbers and useless and often arranged combover-pics.

The before and after art of the comb over.


Strategic follicle placement and lighting precision.


Continuous bullshit.


Can get better results with finasteride alone

 

[cocona]

The change is so insignificant...

I wish we could figure this sh*t out already. This is nice research, but man... We're due for something better by now. Decades of fucked up botched jobs and temporary/insignificant growth and mice studies are old already.

The one that was like no change was fat alone injected not full Kerastem. Sorry I should of labelled them.

I nixed the fat alone picture and labelled the others.

I'm actually really impressed with picture 1 (Size of the baldness spot on the crown) and picture 4(position of hairline above temples.).