Private finasteride study

[under20]

Background. Finasteride (Propecia) was approved by the FDA in 1998 for treating men with androgenetic alopecia. The published clinical trials demonstrated statistical differences between drug and placebo. Rarely do new drugs undergo further non-drug-company-sponsored studies of efficacy. Concerns about clinical studies and marketing of drugs prompted this evaluation of a large group of patients taking this medication.

Objective. Finasteride usage offered an opportunity not only to understand the acceptance of a cosmetically oriented medication, but also to evaluate subjective comments and compliance after a long period of time.

Methods. A total of 1261 patients were monitored with phone calls every 3 months after finasteride was initially prescribed. After 12 months, a detailed questionnaire was sent to all patients with an additional letter and two telephone calls if no response was received. Statistical analysis of the patients' data was made.

Results. Thirty-two percent or 414 men continued to take finasteride daily for 1 to 3 years. Twenty-four percent or 297 men discontinued the drug between 3 and 15 months owing to poor results. The remaining 44% or 549 men were lost to follow-up despite numerous attempts to contact them.

Conclusion. A total of 414 men continued to take the medication, but only 211 returned detailed questionnaires. A small percentage of this group felt that they grew hair. The remaining patients noted poor results.

 

[Nate_the_balding_loser]

I would like to know the age demographic of this study. I am to believe that younger people react better to finasteride. Also, the 549 who didnt respond might of had regrowth. People are less apt to compalin or even care when they are doing well. They would be like me 2 years ago, not even thinking about hairloss.

 

[under20]

PROPECIA (1 MG FINASTERIDE) was approved by the FDA in 1998 for treating men with androgenetic alopecia. It is the first oral prescription medication intended for this use. Controlled clinical trials of men with Hamilton scales II to V demonstrated statistical differences in regards to hair counts in drug versus placebo studies. 13 In addition, 290 men were followed for 5 years and showed a small increase in hair growth at the vertex. Self-assessments at 5 years showed that 63% of actively treated patients and 20% of placebo patients were satisfied with the overall appearance of their hair. 4,5

The intent of this report is to offer guidance for future prescribing and expectations for this medication. Many dermatologic surgeons prescribe this medication for a period of time before and after hair transplantation. Guidance is necessary to assess the effect of this drug on the surgical outcome. In addition, it is suggested that private, non-pharmaceutical-company-sponsored studies are necessary to understand the long-term benefits of many medications.



A total of 1261 men with male pattern hair loss and with Hamilton scales predominantly in the II, III, IV, and V range were prescribed Propecia. Digital pictures of the head were taken at that time. Patients were mostly between 20 and 40 years of age and in excellent health. None of the patients were taking any medications that might cause hair loss, nor were any patients exhibiting diseases or symptoms that cause other forms of hair loss. All explanations concerning the drug were given and brochures with further information were offered. Patients were initially seen in the private office or at community events. The medication was to be taken for several years, as per drug company suggestions. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Study protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

Every 3 months, telephone contact was made with each patient and questions concerning side effects, benefits of the drug, and the desire to continue treatment were answered. Telephone contact was maintained every 3 months, unless a patient did not renew the medication.

A detailed questionnaire was mailed to all patients after 12 months. If there was no initial response, further follow-up consisted of a letter and two phone calls. Continuous data were compiled into the third year if the patient continued the drug.

Analysis of the data was undertaken to ascertain whether there were any differences between patients continuing or stopping the medication. Variablesincluding Hamilton scale, age of patient, and years since hair loss beganwere examined. Statistics were generated using univariate and multivariate models.



Telephone or written contact was made with the 414 patients continuing therapy and the 298 patients who stopped the drug. Despite numerous attempts to contact the remaining 549 patients, they could not be reached and were considered the lost to follow-up group. No statistical differences could be found among the three groups. Fifty-seven percent of the continuing therapy group took the drug from 20 to 36 months and 43% from 12 to 20 months.

Of the 298 individuals who stopped taking the drug, 40% took the medication for at least 6 to 15 months before seeing no positive results and then they stopped. The clinical trials reported patients growing hair from as early as 3 to 6 months with positive subjective comments 1,2 .

The patients in the "lost to follow-up" group were ignored in the statistical analysis, although counting them as a "stopped group" of patients would be more realistic. There are many reasons to explain this "lost group": the expense of medication, loss of interest, and concern of side effects. Nevertheless, it is believed that the vast majority saw no positive results and stopped taking the medication.

Approximately 50% of the continuing drug group answered the questionnaire. Table 1 delineates questionnaire results, showing that 70% believed hair stopped falling out, but only 47% thought that they showed new hair growth. Despite no perceived growth, the other 52% continued taking medication. Hair growth was noted early: 29% in the first 4 months and 58% in the 5- to 8-month range. Ninety-seven percent of patients reported taking pills almost daily, demonstrating great compliance.

 

[Nate_the_balding_loser]

I don't know. It may be my faith in my own hair loss cure, but I don't buy the results. To conclude the 549 people who didn't respond simply didn't see any regrowth and quit is missleading. We have no idea what happened to them, and to chalk them up them as unresponsive is unscientific.

I think this study should be thrown out. 44% of a sample is a huge margin, you can not conclude anything when half of your subject don't respond.

 

[under20]

i agree with u, but it is still disheartning

 

[Armando Jose]

This is not a double-bind study, nor placebo,... etc

And then, is it importante for us care with this conclussion?

Armando

 

[grtt]

Hmm,
I think that what someone feels and what happens in reality is a different thing. I mean some people may think that they saw difference , while there isn't one, and some people may feel that they have no difference, despite the fact that there is one but they don't notice it.
I think that this must be done by scientific observation!

 

[juststarting]

This is not a double-bind study, nor placebo,... etc

And then, is it importante for us care with this conclussion?

Armando

Wow, nice catch. This study is useless. In fact irresponsible. Geesh, not double-blind, no placebo, a SUBJECTIVE questionnaire for results (hello, lets do real quantifiable studies please), where is the SOURCE info for this?......NEXT.

Seriously, MOD please lock this thread.

 

[pbz]

"The remaining 44% or 549 men were lost to follow-up despite numerous attempts to contact them."

I think someone mistook Finasteride for Cyanide. :freaked:

 

[21gone]

If I am correct which I think I am this study has been posted before and basically been dubunked because of a total lack of evidence that it is true and for the fact that it is less than scientific in it's approach.

 

[juststarting]

If I am correct which I think I am this study has been posted before and basically been dubunked because of a total lack of evidence that it is true and for the fact that it is less than scientific in it's approach.

Also, where does this study come from anyway? No reference was provided.

 

[under20]

I agree with all u guys, I think this study is garbage in most respects. But I beleive it does have some value in that it has a direct connection to us, in that we are all a basing our results on our personal experiences, just as the participants had to fill out a SUBJECTIVE questionnaire for results. We dont have any doctors taking hair counts for us to see if we improved.....well most of us i think.

 

[20sometingtoo]

I agree with all u guys, I think this study is garbage in most respects. But I beleive it does have some value in that it has a direct connection to us, in that we are all a basing our results on our personal experiences, just as the participants had to fill out a SUBJECTIVE questionnaire for results. We dont have any doctors taking hair counts for us to see if we improved.....well most of us i think.

Why would you need a doctor to tell you if you're hair count has increased? I mean, if you think you are doing better, then thats all that really matters.
See, I started Propecia 3 years ago and had amazing results (according to the mirror, not a doctor) and I was and still am really happy that I hopped on the finasteride train as soon as I did. That said, I think it should only matter if YOU see a difference. Because, after all, we might be trying to cure male pattern baldness, but only because we don't want to damage our self-image. We dont REALLY need hair.