To answer some questions. In 1984, we started some patients on topical minoxidil. People that did not respond got treated with various additional agents until they started responding. In the pharmaceutical development trade, we call this a cross-over trial and it is how drugs got developed until about the early 1950's. You keep trying until something works. All based on the science, naturally.
Thus, anything that gives a clinical response in persons who had not responded to previous treatment is automatically an improvement. So we were able to do better than plain minoxidil quite quickly.
A number of promising classes of agents emerged. These included the copper-peptide superoxide dismutases. These destroy superoxide radical, which destroy nitric oxide (NO), which seems to be the natural compound that miNOxidil mimics. Also emerging were topical arginine, the percurser for NO, as well as pyridine-N-Oxides such as NANO, and spin traps and spin labels such as PBN and TEMPOL. Even hydroxyl radical scavengers such as acetylcysteine seem to help.
Naturally, we patented all of this in a series of nine US patents. We also added topical spironolactone, which seems to help. BTW, a lot of stuff you are always hearing about we invented.
So from the very first, we have been able to do better than (say) minoxidil alone.
The essence of treatment of hair loss seems to be to use several different agents that work in somewhat different ways. This way, we get additive and likely even synergistic effects.
BTW, more recently, our we have come to recognize that SOD-mimetic nitrones and nitroxides such as TEMPOL and DMPO work better than copper-peptide SODs. TEMPOL is even in clinical trials for radiation-induced hair loss.
So, while 25 years ago, it was arguable that our formulations were an advanced form of minoxidl, we have come considerably beyond that now. In essence, if it works, we tend to use it.
BTW, we work at such a basic level of how tissue go bad that my most recent work has been in the area of stroke and neuroprotection. See:
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/conte ... type=HWCIT
Interestingly, becaue everything works at a very basic level of pathogenesis, neuroprotective treatments tend to also to be useful in the treatment of pattern loss. E.g., the same light helmet reported to help with pattern loss is also reliably reported to be effective in stroke.
Peter H. Proctor, PhD,MD
Yeah, those results are obviously not typical. That guy was a really excellent responder.