New hair follicles very pretty tiny decade ago. Maybe they significantly improved their technology to this day. Nobody knows.
Tissuse And J. Hewitt: Smart Hair Transplant Trial In 2019!
- Thread starter RolfLeeBuckler
- Start date
Such amazing news! All of a sudden there's real competition in this field. Tissuse, Tsuji, Invitrohair (some people question these guys' validity), Stemson all starting within the next 12 months? That's four potential holy grail treatments. Breezula, Follica, Samumed all in phase 3's too. Never been a more promising time.
That’s fair. We will have to see what it looks like in a human patient. Obviously the goal with these kinds of treatments is full regrowth.
- Reaction score
- 614
My understanding is that this particular treatment is a cultured dermal papilla cell injection. They've developed a culture medium that allows the cells to maintain inductivity when multiplied.
This doesn't sound like a transplant procedure as there is no mention of controlling orientation, so the goal / outcome is more likely to be repopulating existing but dying hair follicles. Or we'll end up with a whole load of ingrown hairs growing into our skulls...
Someone please convince me otherwise (trust me I want this to have good results):
This is just another RCH-01, which will have efficacy of PRP at best. It will cost thousands and will require repeated sessions for a small amount of maintenance.
People have been injecting different kinds of stem cells into the scalp for years, but it really has never done much to regrow or even maintain current hair follicles. Can someone please explain the science behind this treatment and how it may be better than RCH-01? Because I really don't have much stock in RCH-01, given the phase 1 had very underwhelming results.
How does this treatment work and how is it different from RCH-01?
This is just another RCH-01, which will have efficacy of PRP at best. It will cost thousands and will require repeated sessions for a small amount of maintenance.
People have been injecting different kinds of stem cells into the scalp for years, but it really has never done much to regrow or even maintain current hair follicles. Can someone please explain the science behind this treatment and how it may be better than RCH-01? Because I really don't have much stock in RCH-01, given the phase 1 had very underwhelming results.
How does this treatment work and how is it different from RCH-01?
Many private clinics offer “stem cell“ treatments for different kind of diseases with poor results of course, because the don’t have knowledge how to cultivate stem cells. It is very tricky procedure and requires a lot of scientific knowledge and different kind of stem cells have different purpose in body.
H
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 775
I would like an answer to this also. i
If this is just injecting cells for some mediocre broad termed "rejuvination" that's a bummer however I thought Tissuse model in the beginning was that these neo papillae would grow into whole new follicles?
- Reaction score
- 892
What are you talking about? PRP is bullshit they take your existing blood. Extract the platelets, inject it back into your head...
... that’s not like this at all. This reads as though it is about creating new follicles and transplanting them in your scalp.
- Reaction score
- 984
https://www.hairlosstalk.com/news/new-research/tissuse-smart-hair-transplants/
Here you can read about the scientific background of Smart Hair Transplant. I think they are very confident about their research and also they have a strategy for commercialization.
So we can take this research and statements of the CEO very serious. I am very excited about the results in December.
Here you can read about the scientific background of Smart Hair Transplant. I think they are very confident about their research and also they have a strategy for commercialization.
So we can take this research and statements of the CEO very serious. I am very excited about the results in December.
- Reaction score
- 614
"We expect the neopapilla to be able induce hair growth by two separate mechanisms:
- Rejuvenation of dormant hair follicles through injection of the neopapillae at the site of the dormant hair follicle.
- De novo creation of a hair follicle by recruiting keratinocytes and melanocytes from the surrounding tissue to the site of the injection. This is a process that would closely follow the organogenesis of the hair follicle and which we can also observe in vitro in our microfollicle model. If this 2-fold induction mechanism allows for a higher hair density has to be proven in the clinical trials by comparing SHT vs established methods."
I have to say this is pretty disappointing for those of us who still have reasonable coverage hoping to get a DP repopulation treatment ASAP as this will take far longer to commercialise even with promising trial results a few months after December.
Last edited:
Don't Believe Everything You Hear about Stem Cells
The science is progressing rapidly, but bad actors have co-opted stem cells’ hope and promise by preying on unsuspecting patients and their families
Stem cell science is moving forward rapidly, with potential therapies to treat intractable human diseases on the horizon. Clinical trials are now underway to test the safety and effectiveness of stem cell–based treatments for blindness, spinal cord injury, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and more, some with early positive results. A sense of urgency drives the scientific community, and there is tremendous hope to finally cure diseases that, to date, have had no treatment.
Advertisements and pseudo news articles promote stem cell treatments for everything from Alzheimer’s disease, autism and ALS, to cerebral palsy and other diseases. The claims simply aren’t true--they’re propagated by people wanting to make money off of a desperate and unsuspecting or unknowing public. Patients and their families can be misled by deceptive marketing from unqualified physicians who often don’t have appropriate medical credentials and offer no scientific evidence of their claims. In many cases, the cells being utilized are not even true stem cells.
What to Believe?
Advertisements for stem cell treatments are showing up everywhere, with too-good-to-be-true claims and often a testimonial or two meant to suggest legitimacy or efficacy. Beware of the following:
• Claims that stem cell treatments can treat a wide range of diseases using a singular stem cell type. This is unlikely to be true.
• Claims that stem cells taken from one area of the body can be used to treat another, unrelated area of the body. This is also unlikely to be true.
• Patient testimonials used to validate a particular treatment, with no scientific evidence. This is a red flag.
• Claims that evidence doesn’t yet exist because the clinic is running a patient-funded trial. This is a red flag; clinical trials rarely require payment for experimental treatment.
• Claims that the trial is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov and is therefore NIH-approved. This may not be true. The Web site is simply a listing; not all are legitimate trials.
• The bottom line: Does the treatment sound too good to be true? If so, it probably is. Look for concrete evidence that the treatment works and is safe.
Hundreds of clinics offer costly, unapproved and unproven stem cell interventions, and patients may suffer physical and financial harm as a result.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-believe-everything-you-hear-about-stem-cells/
The science is progressing rapidly, but bad actors have co-opted stem cells’ hope and promise by preying on unsuspecting patients and their families
Stem cell science is moving forward rapidly, with potential therapies to treat intractable human diseases on the horizon. Clinical trials are now underway to test the safety and effectiveness of stem cell–based treatments for blindness, spinal cord injury, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and more, some with early positive results. A sense of urgency drives the scientific community, and there is tremendous hope to finally cure diseases that, to date, have had no treatment.
Advertisements and pseudo news articles promote stem cell treatments for everything from Alzheimer’s disease, autism and ALS, to cerebral palsy and other diseases. The claims simply aren’t true--they’re propagated by people wanting to make money off of a desperate and unsuspecting or unknowing public. Patients and their families can be misled by deceptive marketing from unqualified physicians who often don’t have appropriate medical credentials and offer no scientific evidence of their claims. In many cases, the cells being utilized are not even true stem cells.
What to Believe?
Advertisements for stem cell treatments are showing up everywhere, with too-good-to-be-true claims and often a testimonial or two meant to suggest legitimacy or efficacy. Beware of the following:
• Claims that stem cell treatments can treat a wide range of diseases using a singular stem cell type. This is unlikely to be true.
• Claims that stem cells taken from one area of the body can be used to treat another, unrelated area of the body. This is also unlikely to be true.
• Patient testimonials used to validate a particular treatment, with no scientific evidence. This is a red flag.
• Claims that evidence doesn’t yet exist because the clinic is running a patient-funded trial. This is a red flag; clinical trials rarely require payment for experimental treatment.
• Claims that the trial is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov and is therefore NIH-approved. This may not be true. The Web site is simply a listing; not all are legitimate trials.
• The bottom line: Does the treatment sound too good to be true? If so, it probably is. Look for concrete evidence that the treatment works and is safe.
Hundreds of clinics offer costly, unapproved and unproven stem cell interventions, and patients may suffer physical and financial harm as a result.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-believe-everything-you-hear-about-stem-cells/
This is litterally why we discuss clinical trials in this forum. to support facts and share knowledge.
I agree. Clinical trials will unsolve many questions and mysteries. The best way scientists learn where they got wrong is throught clinical trials.
When did I say they are similar technology? Obviously I never said they are similar scientifically. I’m just predicting they will have similar efficacy if they are just injecting cells into your scalp.
They are planning on releasing study results in December? Nice dude
- Reaction score
- 287
They're planning to start their trials at the earlierst in December. So no, we won't have any results in December.
If they're able to hold their Plan, they finish the study in june next year. After finishing they have to watch their results and create a output with sweet pictures and a good text. So, we may see results in july next year.
If they're able to hold their Plan, they finish the study in june next year. After finishing they have to watch their results and create a output with sweet pictures and a good text. So, we may see results in july next year.
- Reaction score
- 984
The CEO said:
„We are planning by December of 2019 to start. If successful, SHT can be offered to patients around the world who would come to Japan, have hair biopsies, and then return in 45 days for injection of the Neo-papilla. So we will know this year I believe SHT is a viable treatment.“
That is why i thought that they would know already this year if it is a Viable Treatment. I could Imagine that The trial Will Go on and be later over so The Official results would be Open in 2020. But Maybe The CEO will Tell like he said in December about The first efficacy Signs of The trial.
Or what do You think why he said, that „we will know this year“?
„We are planning by December of 2019 to start. If successful, SHT can be offered to patients around the world who would come to Japan, have hair biopsies, and then return in 45 days for injection of the Neo-papilla. So we will know this year I believe SHT is a viable treatment.“
That is why i thought that they would know already this year if it is a Viable Treatment. I could Imagine that The trial Will Go on and be later over so The Official results would be Open in 2020. But Maybe The CEO will Tell like he said in December about The first efficacy Signs of The trial.
Or what do You think why he said, that „we will know this year“?
This is promising
It would be important to know if only REJUVENATE miniaturized follicles or CREATE new follicles ¿? Could be it recover the follicles from the donor zone extracted in hairloss transplants ¿? it would be an advantage while we wait SHT technique
It would be important to know if only REJUVENATE miniaturized follicles or CREATE new follicles ¿? Could be it recover the follicles from the donor zone extracted in hairloss transplants ¿? it would be an advantage while we wait SHT technique
It won't necessarily need a phase 2 trial to hit the marketplace.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 614
Not as such but:
"Rather than using phased clinical trials, companies will have to demonstrate efficacy in pilot studies of as few as ten patients in one study, if the change is dramatic enough, or a few hundred when improvement is more marginal."
Unfortunately (yes this is a bit more speculation so please feel free to disagree) I don't see a pilot trial on 5 people producing such groundbreaking results that they convince the governing body. This would mean they will have to move on to a much larger trial, akin to a phase 2, before being granted marketing permission.