Don't know if this article is true about Propecia

[ACT10Npack]

http://www.saratogahair.com/propecia.htm

I read this article from a transplanet website which is was talking about propecia. Will it said that propecia will regrow hair for the first 4 years and after that the person will slowly lose their hair until the 10 year. Which will be back where they start going on propecia.

10 years is a long time to keep there hair but I only seen 5 year study on Propecia and want to know if this article is true. The link is on top of this topic I posted.

 

[pharoh]

As far as I know propecia only became available as a treatment, in 1997, which means even with the tests which were done sometime before then, there won't be any subjects who have been on the treatment for 10 years.

So at best the 10 years that they state is a guess

Anyway, hell if I could keep hair of my hair till I'm 30 that would be heaven, far better than being a N7 by the time I'm 22 at any rate

 

[The shedder]

5 years would be a godsend for me, then after the 5 years dutasteride or spironolactone will be next in my regimen. Some people will respond well after 5 years you just have to wait and see if your one of them.

 

[drinkrum]

http://www.saratogahair.com/propecia.htm

I read this article from a transplanet website which is was talking about propecia. Will it said that propecia will regrow hair for the first 4 years and after that the person will slowly lose their hair until the 10 year. Which will be back where they start going on propecia.

10 years is a long time to keep there hair but I only seen 5 year study on Propecia and want to know if this article is true. The link is on top of this topic I posted.

I don't see how the doctor, who seems pretty knowledgeable about finasteride, conjectures 10-year progress based on the 5-year report.

To my knowledge, finasteride will work as long as you use it. After about 2-years, as you will see in the 5-year report, hair counts reach a maximum and then gradually become asymptotic to a level still higher than baseline for the remaining few years.

I don't see where and why he thinks there is a definite 10-year horizon for finasteride. It really depends on the person. For some people, their male pattern baldness will accelerate as they age and they will lose hair (although at a much slower rate) while taking finasteride. For some people, finasteride will continue to maintain for a much longer time horizon.

D.

 

[Bismarck]

http://www.saratogahair.com/propecia.htm

I read this article from a transplanet website which is was talking about propecia. Will it said that propecia will regrow hair for the first 4 years and after that the person will slowly lose their hair until the 10 year. Which will be back where they start going on propecia.

10 years is a long time to keep there hair but I only seen 5 year study on Propecia and want to know if this article is true. The link is on top of this topic I posted.

I don't see how the doctor, who seems pretty knowledgeable about finasteride, conjectures 10-year progress based on the 5-year report.

To my knowledge, finasteride will work as long as you use it. After about 2-years, as you will see in the 5-year report, hair counts reach a maximum and then gradually become asymptotic to a level still higher than baseline for the remaining few years.

I don't see where and why he thinks there is a definite 10-year horizon for finasteride. It really depends on the person. For some people, their male pattern baldness will accelerate as they age and they will lose hair (although at a much slower rate) while taking finasteride. For some people, finasteride will continue to maintain for a much longer time horizon.

D.

I guess they used the data of the 5 year trial i.e. the curve of the average patient to interpolate how many hairs the average patient has. And the found out that he returns to baseline after 10 years. I don't agree with drinkrum that the curve is asymptotical to baseline. That would mean you'll have more hairs in 50 years than before treatment. Don't think so.

 

[drinkrum]

Bismarck,

I stated that the hair counts are asymptotic to a level higher than baseline for the remaining years after the 2nd year in the 5-year study. That means, they're asymptotic for Year 3, 4, and 5. Nowhere did I mention 50 years.

This isn't linear regression analysis. You can't extrapolate data based on a few data points and assume a linear regression. So I wouldn't put too much merit in the doctor's 10-year conjecture if it is based on some linear model.

Also, keep in mind that Proscar has been around for years. People have been using Proscar for hair loss and for BPH for decades now and many of them have retained their hair. Like I said before, it really depends on an individual's hair loss case -- some have it worse genetically and their male pattern baldness accelerates fast.

D.

 

[Bismarck]

Bismarck,

drinkrum,

I stated that the hair counts are asymptotic to a level higher than baseline for the remaining years after the 2nd year in the 5-year study. That means, they're asymptotic for Year 3, 4, and 5. Nowhere did I mention 50 years.

Seems that I didn't understand you correctly. Asymptotic means to me that the haircount-curve approaches to baseline but never crosses it. That implies that one is better than baseline even after 50 years.

This isn't linear regression analysis. You can't extrapolate data based on a few data points and assume a linear regression. So I wouldn't put too much merit in the doctor's 10-year conjecture if it is based on some linear model.

Extrapolate is the right word, thank you. I didn't say anything of linear regression. I thought of a logarithm-like regression or sth. like that.

Also, keep in mind that Proscar has been around for years. People have been using Proscar for hair loss and for BPH for decades now and many of them have retained their hair.

Some reports in the internet of people using Finasteride for 10 years are not very representative.

Like I said before, it really depends on an individual's hair loss case -- some have it worse genetically and their male pattern baldness accelerates fast.

Yes. And therefore I spoke of the "average patient" which is represented by the curve of the 5 years trial.

D.

B.

 

[elguapo]

Quck comment: Their 5+ years data might have come from the use and studies of proscar. A lot of people were on proscar well before 1997. They might be using their data or just testimonies as the basis for the article.

That's all. Good luck.

 

[ACT10Npack]

Propecia is 1MG and Proscar is 5MG. If they got the study from people using Proscar for prostate than they would be taking 5MG a day not 1MG. The people that was using proscar was not cutting it up. So, they could not got the first 5 years from proscar because the doses are different.

 

[drinkrum]

Quck comment: Their 5+ years data might have come from the use and studies of proscar. A lot of people were on proscar well before 1997. They might be using their data or just testimonies as the basis for the article.

That's all. Good luck.

It was the Propecia 5-year study. Here's a link: http://www.propecia.com/finasteride/pro ... reases.jsp

D.

 

[drinkrum]

Bismarck,

The 5-year Propecia study still had haircounts above baseline. The curve of the 5-year study shows haircounts maxing out at about the 2-year mark and then slowly decreasing and approaching baseline but never crossing that point. I've yet to come across a longer study of finasteride that shows at a certain point haircount to be steadily decreasing past baseline and into "negative" turf.

Of course some people's accounts of finasteride usage of more than 10 year is not the final word. I never implied it such but just posed it as a counterexample to that doctor's 10-year claim.

It doesn't seem like you disagree with me so maybe it's just a matter of semantics.

D.

 

[Bismarck]

The 5-year Propecia study still had haircounts above baseline. The curve of the 5-year study shows haircounts maxing out at about the 2-year mark and then slowly decreasing and approaching baseline but never crossing that point. I've yet to come across a longer study of finasteride that shows at a certain point haircount to be steadily decreasing past baseline and into "negative" turf.

I also haven't seen one. But I'm deeply convinced that this ("decreasing into negative turf" as you said) happens after some time - 10 years are maybe a good estimation. Merck has certainly no interest in conducting such a study...

Of course some people's accounts of finasteride usage of more than 10 year is not the final word. I never implied it such but just posed it as a counterexample to that doctor's 10-year claim.

There are some telling that minoxidil is still regrowing hairs after 5 years of use. If the 10-year claim applies to me i.e. if I still have the same amount of hair in 10 years as today by simply popping a quarter of a proscar tab -believe me, I would be a happy man!

It doesn't seem like you disagree with me so maybe it's just a matter of semantics.

agreed. :wink:

bis

 

[ACT10Npack]

The 5-year Propecia study still had haircounts above baseline.

What do you mean by the above baseline?

 

[Bismarck]

The 5-year Propecia study still had haircounts above baseline.

What do you mean by the above baseline?

That means: The average Propecia patient in the study had still more hair (in a certain area !?!?!) than at the time he started the treatment 5 years ago.

bis

 

[michael1000]

i have been on half a mil of propecia for 2-3 years now and its still working.

where do i find reports for 5 year study.

im worried it will stop working after 10 years now.

do people really think the shampoo helps as well ??

thanks michael

 

[drinkrum]

I posted the link for the 5-year study in this thread. Go to the first page of the thread and you'll see it at the very bottom.

D.

 

[Bryan]

Bismarck,

The 5-year Propecia study still had haircounts above baseline. The curve of the 5-year study shows haircounts maxing out at about the 2-year mark and then slowly decreasing and approaching baseline but never crossing that point.

Oh, I dunno. I don't think there are enough data points yet to know for sure if the drop really is linear OR asymptotic. I think the doctor was obviously extrapolating when he said it would reach baseline in about 10 years, and it seems like a reasonable prediction. And it may well even drop further after that.

Bryan

 

[Bismarck]

Bismarck,

The 5-year Propecia study still had haircounts above baseline. The curve of the 5-year study shows haircounts maxing out at about the 2-year mark and then slowly decreasing and approaching baseline but never crossing that point.

Oh, I dunno. I don't think there are enough data points yet to know for sure if the drop really is linear OR asymptotic. I think the doctor was obviously extrapolating when he said it would reach baseline in about 10 years, and it seems like a reasonable prediction. And it may well even drop further after that.

Bryan

It HAS to be asymptotic !

 

[Bryan]

It HAS to be asymptotic !

Why?

 

[Bismarck]

The haircount curve is at worst asymptotic to the Norwood 7 head.