A tantalizing POTENTIAL for full regrowth?? Hmmm...

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
The study below has been cited a few times by various people on hairloss sites over the last couple of years, but I've read the whole thing, and I want to present some of the interesting details from it. First of all, here's the abstract:

J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003 May;48(5):752-9.

"Transplants from balding and hairy androgenetic alopecia scalp regrow hair comparably well on immunodeficient mice"

Krajcik RA, Vogelman JH, Malloy VL, Orentreich N.

"Human hair follicles were grafted onto 2 strains of immunodeficient mice to compare the regeneration potential of vellus (miniaturized, balding) and terminal (hairy, nonbalding) follicles from males and a female exhibiting pattern baldness. Each mouse had transplants of both types of follicles from a single donor for direct comparison. Grafted follicles from 2 male donors resulted in nonsignificant differences in mean length (52 mm vs 54 mm) and mean diameter (99 microm vs 93 microm) at 22 weeks for hairs originating from balding and hairy scalp, respectively, corresponding to 400% versus 62% of the mean pretransplantation diameters. Follicles from the female donor transplanted to several mice also resulted in nonsignificant differences in length (43 mm vs 37 mm) for hairs from balding and hairy scalp, respectively, during a period of 22 weeks. The mean diameter of the originally vellus hairs increased 3-fold, whereas the terminal hairs plateaued at approximately 50% of pretransplantation diameter, resulting in a final balding hair volume double that of the nonbalding hairs. This report shows that miniaturized hair follicles of pattern alopecia can quickly regenerate once removed from the human scalp and can grow as well as or better than terminal follicles from the same individual."

The abstract gives the salient points: they found that fine vellus hairs from balding human scalps had an EXCEPTIONAL ability to regenerate, when transplanted onto test mice that had severe immune deficiency (they use those for transplant experiments so that the mice don't suffer rejection of the foreign tissue). In fact, after about 5 to 6 months, transplanted follicles with vellus hairs regrew to the same size as the transplanted terminal hairs in one set of mice, and actually grew LARGER than the terminal hairs in another set of mice (for which phenomenon they don't yet have any explanation)! Here's an extended excerpt from the Discussion section at the end in which they speculate about the various implications of their findings:

"...The phenomenon occurring in the xenograft experiments reported here is quite different and dramatic: hypotrophic anagen and telogen hairs from balding scalp exhibiting only vellus hairs in situ regenerate very quickly. By six months, the ratio of the diameters of grafted to pretransplant vellus hairs exceeds 3:1 (Fig 3). Histologic examination of post-transplantation follicles from balding scalp also shows fully developed anagen follicles at six months (Fig 2). The regeneration of vellus follicles occurs just as quickly on male as on female mice (data not shown); this suggests that a factor or factors other than androgen withdrawal may be involved but does not necessarily rule out that differences in androgen levels, availablity, or both between human beings and mice account in part or entirely for the rapid vellus-to-terminal transformation of balding follicles. For instance, the activity of the 5a-R enzyme(s) may be greatly reduced or absent in the transplanted follicles, thereby, limiting exposure of the follicles to DHT. The accelerated transformation of vellus follicles on immunodeficient mice might correspond to responses seen in balding men treated with oral finasteride who are exceptionally good responders. However, in our clinical experience, females with Androgenetic Alopecia, including the female in study II, frequently have normal androgen and androgen-binding globulin levels for their age and sex. It is difficult to argue that lower systemic androgen levels in the female mouse environment (or higher in the male mice) causes the rapid regeneration of vellus hair follicles from the human female. Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens, particularly in women showing diffuse/pattern alopecia, that is lacking in the nude mouse seems plausible. This could be some other steroid, hormone, cytokine, neuropeptide, or an immunologically related factor."

I think that last part about the "immunologically related factor" is an understatement! :wink: After reading this paper, it now seems likely that the immune system is an even bigger factor in male pattern baldness than was previously thought. I personally had always assumed that the putative attack on hair follicles by the immune system was something that happens relatively late in the game, but this study is awfully compelling. But oddly enough, you see very little about this aspect of balding in the medical literature. Dr. Proctor, OTOH, has talked about it for years on alt.baldspot.

So what really is the point of bringing this up in the first place, this issue "Of Mice and Men"?? :wink: Well, I think it can be a source of great hope for all of us! It proves that there exists the POTENTIAL for our poor follicles to regenerate completely all on their own, if only we can figure out how to let that happen. It appears that we may not have to wait for far-off and possibly risky genetic treatments, or puzzle-out all those very complex mesenchymal-epithelial interactions (HM, in other words), or depend on other high-tech treatments. We may find simpler, safer ways to do it, with the additional clues provided by this fascinating study.

Bryan
 

dazzer1970

Member
Reaction score
0
It certainly makes for interesting reading. I really think the immune system, brilliant as it can be is also still fundementally flawed. It's not uncommen for the immune system to turn on it's host - the disease Systemic Lupus is a case in point.

Immunology is probably where the next breakthrough will come from. Articles like this do make me feel a bit more positive about the future.
 

wangho75

Experienced Member
Reaction score
4
dazzer1970 said:
It certainly makes for interesting reading. I really think the immune system, brilliant as it can be is also still fundementally flawed. It's not uncommen for the immune system to turn on it's host - the disease Systemic Lupus is a case in point.

Immunology is probably where the next breakthrough will come from. Articles like this do make me feel a bit more positive about the future.

don't most men with aids usually lose their hair?
 

Footy

Member
Reaction score
0
Bryan.

Please re- post this in the experimental forum, and i'll tell you what is happening here! :wink:

S Foote.
 

wangho75

Experienced Member
Reaction score
4
I know one supplement that im taking (either MSM, Flax, or Grape Seed extract) deals with the immune system, and I have been having great results early on. Coincidence?
 

Dinzy

Established Member
Reaction score
3
wangho75 said:
dazzer1970 said:
It certainly makes for interesting reading. I really think the immune system, brilliant as it can be is also still fundementally flawed. It's not uncommen for the immune system to turn on it's host - the disease Systemic Lupus is a case in point.

Immunology is probably where the next breakthrough will come from. Articles like this do make me feel a bit more positive about the future.

don't most men with aids usually lose their hair?

If they do and this theory is correct then it must not be related to the Immunodeficiency part of AIDS, rather the diseases that attack the body as a result of low immune response
 
G

Guest

Guest
wangho75 said:
dazzer1970 said:
It certainly makes for interesting reading. I really think the immune system, brilliant as it can be is also still fundementally flawed. It's not uncommen for the immune system to turn on it's host - the disease Systemic Lupus is a case in point.

Immunology is probably where the next breakthrough will come from. Articles like this do make me feel a bit more positive about the future.

don't most men with aids usually lose their hair?
I don't think people with aids lose their hair. They cut it off to prevent any bacteria getting in it and making them sick.
 

Johnny24601

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
re:

HIV patients do suffer from hairloss based on their body stuctures being malnurished as a result of the disease. The theory that Aids patients would lose their hair as a result of the disease is counter productive as Aids shuts down the work of the immune system and thus would decrease the potential for attacks on the hair follicles.
Most experts agree that the hair follicle is shrunk because the immune system recognizes DHT as foreign and attacks the follicles containing DHT, this is why we take finasteride to reduce DHT from reaching the follicle.
One must ask why DHT would begin to show up in the top hair follicles to begin with. Too many take the point of view that balding is some sort of negative to the human body but in reality this is strictly an issue of appearance and an issue in which society has deemed this a negative. I compare this alot to the current trend in society to laugh and denegrate dudes that are hairy as if it is ugly. Yet in the 70's a hairy chest was the sexiest thing going. Do I think that in twenty year women will be going crazy for bald dudes, no in my opinion, but it could happen. There could be some physiological reason that the body begins to send DHT to the follicles but I have never seen a good reason. Maybe all these balding guys are actually in better physical condition because the DHT may be making their hair disappear but may also play a small part in positive body function (i.e. focus, bloodflow, bone density, concentration).
 

Footy

Member
Reaction score
0
This is a very important study, as it really cannot be explained by the current theory of androgen related hair growth/loss. 8)

The current theory says the male pattern baldness follicles respond in the way they do to androgens, because of an all `internal' programing. Well if such is the case, this internal programing still exists, and the androgen stimulous is still present in these mice! The current theory cannot explain these results, no matter how much `spin' is applied :wink:

What this study `very' clearly shows, is that it is the environment of the follicle that is `the' important factor in male pattern baldness.

So what is it about these immunodeficient mice that allows this regrowth of male pattern baldness follicles?

The immune deficiency is bred into these mice to avoid rejection of grafted tissue in this kind of experiment. I do think this characteristic is the reason for male pattern baldness follicle regrowth but `NOT' by any `direct' immunology!

The very well respected hair loss scientist Dr Hideo Uno, has established no `direct' link between the androgen mediated follicle shrinkage and the local immunology.

In macaques, the balding process is androgen induced follicle miniaturization just like in humans, but the immune component often seen `later' in human male pattern baldness, is NOT there in macaques.

So we know the immunology is just not directly `required', or is mechanistic in the male pattern baldness process itself!!

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... ting_type=

What is known about the effects of immunodeficiency in these mice, is the significant effect this has on the healing process. In particular the impaired developement of fibrose tissue during healing.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/20/10663

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10 ... ookieSet=1

These links all show the significant changes in tissue regeneration (healing) in these mice.

This relates to my previous arguments in these forums about the principle of the formation of fibrose tissue around follicles in the healing of transplanted grafts. According to my theory of follicle miniaturization through `early' contact inhibition, caused by androgen induced increases in scalp pressure, this is what is going on.

In `normal' human hair transplantation, the only follicles that survive are those large anagen follicles that have had a fibrose scaffold form around them during the healing of the transplanted grafts. This `mould' around these large anagen follicles, then preserves this space for future anagen enlargements against the pressure in the balding scalp.

The scaffold or `matrix' principle is known to protect against early contact inhibition of cell growth.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=122571

The importance of this scaffold principle in hair follicle growth, is now recognised by those involved in hair multiplication research.

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... &mode=full

By the same mechanism, if miniaturised follicles are transplanted, the fibrose scaffold that forms around these, will prevent their re-enlargement, even if the local tissue `pressure' would allow this!

This factor would normally `lock' follicles in their as transplanted state, ie they would demonstrate the percived `donor dominance' of the current theory. But NOT for any reasoning of the current theory!

Again Dr Uno proposed this fibrosis factor, as a barrier to the re-enlargement of miniaturized follicles, same link again.

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... ting_type=

Quote:

"In alopecia skin, tha abnormal streamers underneath the follicles appear to be a structural barrier for the down-growth of anagen follicles. Moreover, severe inflammatory involvement in the streamers causes suppressive growth of the follicular bulb and dermal papilla cells (see Figure 8a). Dense collagenous or hyalinized scarring streamers block the growth of follicles (Figure 8b and c). These follicular structures naturally resist any therapeutic effect for follicular growth. Moreover, associations of focal perivascular and perofollicular inflammatory cell infiltrations are often seen in alopecic skin."

Now, in this immunodeficient mice study, the formation of any fibrose scaffold that would lock the follicles in the as transplanted state, is absent!

So if the if the pressure conditions are lower in these mice, and the transplanted follicles are not `fixed' in size by a fibrose `matrix', these miniaturized follicles could enlarge according to my theory?

It seems that they do! :wink:

S Foote.
 

chew

Established Member
Reaction score
0
along this train of thought--and sort of mentioned above--could a method of creating a barrier within currently minaturized hair follicles-- either let them start growing thicker again or at least stop the progression of male pattern baldness?

Maybe there is some kind of topical that could be rubbed on, or something injected directly into the follicles that would do this?

Besides Uno is anyone else exploring this method as a treatment option?
 

damnthis

Established Member
Reaction score
1
Hair growth-stimulating effects of cyclosporin A and FK506, potent immunosuppressants.

J Dermatol Sci. 1994 Jul;7 Suppl:S47-54. Related Articles, Links


Hair growth-stimulating effects of cyclosporin A and FK506, potent immunosuppressants.

Yamamoto S, Kato R.

Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.

Cyclosporin A (CsA), a cyclic endecapeptide, is a T cell-specific immunosuppressant and is successfully used in the field of organ transplantation. Another T cell-specific immunosuppressant, FK506, a more recently discovered macrolide antibiotic, is effective against graft rejection at much lower doses than CsA. Although totally different in structure, both compounds inhibit T cell activation by interfering with the production of interleukin-2 (IL-2) by inhibiting IL-2 gene expression, probably through the inhibition of calcineurin, a Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent phosphatase. Clinical studies have revealed that FK506 induces a variety of side effects in common with CsA. One of the most common side effects of CsA is hypertrichosis. The hair growth stimulating effect of CsA is observed not only in normal but also in pathological conditions of hair growth, i.e. in patients with alopecia areata and also in some patients with male-pattern alopecia. Although hypertrichosis is induced by both topical and oral administration of CsA, there has been no report showing that FK506 induces hypertrichosis. Recently we have found that topical application of FK506 to skins of mice, rats and hamsters markedly stimulates hair growth. This hair growth stimulating effect of FK506 is observed when applied topically but not by oral administration, even with a dose which causes marked immunosuppression. The hair growth stimulating effect of FK506 in normal animals may apparently be unrelated to its immunosuppressive effect. In vitro studies revealed that FK506 directly stimulates hair follicles. Mechanisms of hair growth stimulating effects of FK506 and CsA remain to be elucidated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial






- Hair growth modulation by topical immunophilin ligands: induction of anagen, inhibition of massive catagen development, and relative protection from chemotherapy-induced alopecia.



Am J Pathol. 1997 Apr;150(4):1433-41. Related Articles, Links


Hair growth modulation by topical immunophilin ligands: induction of anagen, inhibition of massive catagen development, and relative protection from chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

Maurer M, Handjiski B, Paus R.

Department of Dermatology, Charite Hospital, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany.

Selected immunophilin ligands (IPLs) are not only potent immunosuppressants but also modulate hair growth. Their considerable side effects, however, justify at best topical applications of these drugs for the management of clinical hair growth disorders. Therefore, we have explored hair growth manipulation by topical cyclosporin A (CsA) and FK 506 in previously established murine models that mimic premature hair follicle regression (catagen) or chemotherapy-induced alopecia, two major pathomechanisms underlying human hair loss. We confirm that topical CsA and FK 506 induce active hair growth (anagen) in the back skin of C57BL/6 mice with all follicles in the resting stage (telogen) and show that both IPLs also inhibit massive, dexamethasone-induced, premature catagen development in these mice. Furthermore, we demonstrate that CsA and FK 506 provide relative protection from alopecia and follicle dystrophy induced by cyclophosphamide, possibly by favoring the dystrophic anagen pathway of follicle response to chemical damage. Although it remains to be established whether these IPLs exert the same effects on human hair follicles, our study provides proof of the principle that topical IPLs can act as potent manipulators of clinically relevant hair-cycling pathomechanisms. This strongly encourages one to explore the use of topical IPLs in the management of human hair growth disorders.

PMID: 9094998 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]





Anybody here use tacrolimus or protopic or...



other study : http://www.haarweb.nl/forum/attachment. ... mentid=778
 

Solo

Experienced Member
Reaction score
0
Ok, I have checked the theory. Sounds good, but I want to get advantage of this knowledge. What can I do?

I want to be a test dummy.


Is it possible to formulate a topical solution of ciclosporine using ppg?

I use generic minoxidil with ppg with no problems. No benefits, either.


Where can I get cyclosporin from??

Is it expensive??

What frecuency of application would you recommend??


Is any of this reasonable??
 

damnthis

Established Member
Reaction score
1
I would be carefull and ask the experts here and also look into these
drugs, Pimecrolimus (Elidel) en tacrolimus (Protopic), I am no expert myself so I don't know the relation between these drugs and cyclosporin...
but I do think we should look intito this...

for example:

Topical Pimecrolimus, Tacrolimus, and the Risk for Cancer: An Expert Interview With Lawrence Eichenfield, MD

Editor's Note:
On March 10, 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Advisory about the potential cancer risk associated with topical pimecrolimus (Elidel) and tacrolimus (Protopic) .[1,2] The FDA also announced that it will be adding a "black-box" warning to the labeling for the 2 drugs. This action was based on a February 15, 2005, recommendation from the FDA Pediatric Advisory Committee.

These drugs, which are referred to as topical immunomodulators or topical calcineurin inhibitors, inhibit inflammatory cytokine transcription in activated T cells and other inflammatory cells through calcineurin inhibition. Tacrolimus, which was approved in 2000, and pimecrolimus, which was approved in 2001, are indicated for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, or eczema.

Kristin Richardson, Program Director of Medscape Dermatology, interviewed Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, to discuss the implications of the FDA's actions.

Medscape: What was your reaction to the FDA's recommendation for a black-box warning for pimecrolimus and tacrolimus?

Dr. Eichenfield: Let's establish where we are: We know that the Pediatric Advisory Committee has recommended a black-box warning for topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, but this warning has not been effected, and the exact language of the warning is not yet clear.

I, like many dermatologists who have looked at the cumulative evidence, understand the intent of the FDA and the need to educate patients, but I am concerned that a black-box warning is disproportionate given the weight of the evidence we have. The black-box warning has historically been reserved for alarming, serious, life-threatening situations.

I do understand the desire of the FDA to educate the populace about potential carcinogenesis, and, of course, these drugs -- like any drugs -- have risks as well as benefits. There was wide, rapid adoption of topical calcineurin inhibitors by primary care providers and pediatricians, and heavy direct-to-consumer advertising; nearly 2 million prescriptions were written for children between June 2003 and May 2004. But I am concerned that there is a disconnect between the level of risk based on the data and the language that is being used to address this risk. I am also concerned about the potential medical-legal implications for physicians.

Medscape: Could you describe the context in which the FDA took this action?

Dr. Eichenfield: There were several issues. It is known that systemic forms of these drugs, or drugs like them, can be associated with systemic cancers, especially lymphoma. (Tacrolimus is available as a systemic drug indicated for the prevention of rejection following solid organ transplantation; pimecrolimus is not available as a systemic drug.) There were particular concerns about pediatric patients because of children's higher ratio of body surface area to body weight. There were also postmarketing reports of malignancies in children and adults as well as a postmarketing nonhuman primate study with an oral formulation of pimecrolimus that demonstrated the occurrence of lymphoma.

Medscape: Could you give a brief overview of the data?

Dr. Eichenfield: First, it should be noted that much of the data were available at the time the drugs were approved. The new data are the postmarketing reports of malignancies and the nonhuman primate study with oral pimecrolimus.

It should also be emphasized that these are topical drugs, and there is minimal systemic absorption with topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. If you look at the data, it doesn't appear that the frequency and type of lymphomas reported are what you would expect to see if they could be attributed to the long-term use of these drugs. Lymphomas that occur in the context of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapy have characteristic features. The histology and clinical presentation of the cases of lymphoma reported do not match up with the characteristics usually associated with posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder or lymphoma occurring in the immunocompromised setting. A panel of 5 independent oncologists found no definitive link between pimecrolimus and tacrolimus and increased risk of lymphoma.[3] There really isn't strong evidence of attributable cancer to date associated with topically applied tacrolimus or pimecrolimus.

If you look at the number of reported cases of lymphoma, it is actually lower than would be expected in the background population. The epidemiologic problem, of course, is that not every case gets reported. But there is excellent information capture during clinical trials, and the cumulative clinical trial data for pimecrolimus were analyzed by the pharmaceutical company for the number of malignancies during clinical trials. The number of malignancies was lower in the pimecrolimus-treated patients than in control patients, who were randomized to receive either a topical corticosteroid or vehicle. In the 19,000 pimecrolimus-treated patients there were 2 cancers, and 1 was a squamous cell carcinoma. In the 4000 patients treated with either topical corticosteroid or vehicle, there were 5 cancers -- 4 in corticosteroid-treated patients and 1 in a vehicle-treated patient.

There is another question worth asking when considering a potential association between topical immunomodulatory agents used to treat atopic dermatitis and the development of malignancies: "Is the incidence of malignancy higher in patients with atopic dermatitis?" Also, most patients with atopic dermatitis who have been treated with either pimecrolimus or tacrolimus also have a history of topical corticosteroid use, and it is not known whether and how topical corticosteroids may affect carcinogenesis.

In terms of the postmarketing nonhuman primate study that showed lymphoma development in monkeys, that study used an oral formulation of pimecrolimus that was 30 times the highest dose ever recorded in a human with topical use.

Another issue that the pediatric dermatology community has looked at is the effect on the immune system. In large practices, we have not seen systemic immunosuppression or infections in patients using these drugs, with the exception of eczema herpeticum. And this experience is supported by clinical trials. A study just published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed that pimecrolimus cream 1% used for 2 years improved atopic dermatitis in infants and did not interfere with the development of antibodies after vaccination.[4] There is no evidence of systemic immunosuppression in atopic dermatitis patients as a result of topical application of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus.

Medscape: How have physician and patient organizations responded to the FDA's recommendations?

Dr. Eichenfield: The American Academy of Dermatology has issued a statement that it is disappointed by the FDA action, and the president of the Academy, Clay Cockerell, MD, pointed out in the statement that he is concerned that the action will result in the undertreatment of eczema patients. The National Eczema Association has pointed out that the drugs have improved the quality of life of millions of eczema patients and their families, and their Scientific Advisory Committee plans to conduct an independent study on the risk and benefits of these drugs and to support long-term studies. The American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology formed a joint task force that concluded, in a thorough and thoughtful report, that "based on current data, the risk-benefit ratio of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus is equivalent or superior to most conventional therapies for the treatment of chronic relapsing eczema."[3]

Medscape: What advice would you give now to physicians, patients, and caregivers about the use of these drugs?

Dr. Eichenfield: Physicians who have been prescribing these topicals needn't worry that they have been giving a cancer-causing agent to their patients; there really is no evidence of any attributable cancers to date after the topical administration of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus. With patients who are already using these drugs, I would recommend that physicians be reassuring and emphasize that the risk is a potential risk at this point. These drugs aren't carcinogens -- they don't cause mutations -- the concern is based on a theoretic potential to impair local immunosurveillance.

For new prescriptions, I would recommend that physicians educate patients and families about the concerns that have emerged, especially long-term use in young children less than 2 years of age. The physician should work with the family to educate them about the risks and benefits of treatment, and should of course encourage open communication about the approach to treatment while not allowing the disease to get out of control. It must be emphasized that atopic dermatitis is a condition with documented, extreme, life-altering effects on quality of life. And of course patients and parents should be advised to be careful about sun protection and to avoid tanning parlors.

Current FDA guidelines recommend that these drugs are indicated for the short-term or intermittent long-term treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in patients 2 years or older who are unresponsive or intolerant of alternative, conventional therapies or in whom these therapies are inadvisable due to potential risks. They are recommended as second-line treatments. However, when disease severity is considered, first-line treatment is not outside the wording of the indications. For example, I would have no concern at all using these agents as first-line treatment in a child with a history of persistent or frequently recurrent facial dermatitis, where protracted use of corticosteroids would be inadvisable. I think the topical calcineurin inhibitors remain crucial in the long-term intermittent treatment of eczema. I have published algorithms on the use of topical calcineurin inhibitors that incorporate disease severity in a step-wise approach, and I think these algorithms are as reasonable today as they were when they were published.[5]

Supported by an independent educational grant from Novartis.

References
FDA Public Health Advisory. Elidel (pimecrolimus) cream and Protopic (tacrolimus) ointment. March 10, 2005. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/adviso...el_protopic.htm Accessed April 1, 2005.
FDA Talk Paper. FDA issues public health advisory informing health care providers of safety concerns associated with the use of two eczema drugs, Elidel and Protopic. March 10, 2005. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWE...5/ANS01343.html Accessed April 1, 2005.
Fonacier L, Spergel J, Charlesworth E, et al. Report of the Calcineurin Task Force of the ACAAI and AAAAI. [Publication forthcoming]
Papp KA, Werfel T, Folster-Holst R, et al. Long-term control of atopic dermatitis with pimecrolimus cream 1% in infants and young children: A two-year study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:240-246.
Eichenfield LF. Consensus guidelines in diagnosis and treatment of atopic dermatitis. Allergy. 2004;59(suppl 78):86-92.


Lawrence Eichenfield, MD , Chief, Pediatric and Adolescent Dermatology, Children's Hospital and Health Center, San Diego, California; Professor of Pediatrics and Dermatology, University of California, San Diego

Disclosure: Kristin Richardson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Disclosure: Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, has disclosed that he has received grants or research support from Fujisawa, Novartis, Connetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Hill Dermaceuticals, Ferndale, Galderma, and Dermik, and that he has served as a consultant for Connetics and Novartis.

Medscape Dermatology. 2005; 7 (1): ©2005 Medscape
 

dazzer1970

Member
Reaction score
0
dazzer1970 said:
It certainly makes for interesting reading. I really think the immune system, brilliant as it can be is also still fundementally flawed. It's not uncommen for the immune system to turn on it's host - the disease Systemic Lupus is a case in point.

Immunology is probably where the next breakthrough will come from. Articles like this do make me feel a bit more positive about the future.

I did forget to mention when I posted this that my sister has Systemic Lupus and about ten years ago lost a large part of her hair at the front during a flare up. She was told it probably wouldn't grow back, but after a chinese practitioner - through the aid of acupuncture and scalp stimulation using a small needled hammer type instrument - started work on her, within a year she had full regrowth and still does to this day.

Now, I know this is very different to male pattern baldness, but surely shows how the immune system can switch hair follicles and the growth cycles on/ off.

We ALL hope we don't have to wait too long for the answer.
 

damnthis

Established Member
Reaction score
1
bump
 

blaze

Experienced Member
Reaction score
6
I have yet to hear anything good about laser comb.

thintop, have u had any good results with laset comb?
 

sahak

New Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4
I agree with topic title. But infortunatle reserchers dont want to study the phenomenon of hair transplanted on the skin of a nude mice to the smallest detail. This is the first time when hair vellus becomes terminal. Instead, there are tons of articles on potential treatments for Androgenetic Alopecia, from stem cell transplant to cloning hair on the back of mice. I strongly doubt that such methods will be effective in the foreseeable future.
 
Top