Wow! A new study with dutasteride for male pattern baldness!!

[blaze]

Maybe dutasteride is a wow drug bryan.

Remember the trials were done using 2.5mg per day as opposed to the 0.5mg per day that most use here on these message boards.

Thats 5 times the standard dose.

I wonder if guys could afford to use 2.5mg per day how much better their hair would be?

 

[Pondle]

Maybe dutasteride is a wow drug bryan.

Remember the trials were done using 2.5mg per day as opposed to the 0.5mg per day that most use here on these message boards.

Thats 5 times the standard dose.

I wonder if guys could afford to use 2.5mg per day how much better their hair would be?

The GSK trials used 0.5mg per day and 2.5mg per day. 0.5mg dutasteride was found to be more effective than 5mg finasteride, and 2.5mg was far better than either.

However, sides are more of an issue with 2.5mg per day dutasteride (interestingly, 0.5mg per day of dutasteride seems to cause fewer sides than finasteride!)

 

[powersam]

what a bunch of psychosomatic pussies that placebo group turned out to be hey....

and its weird that the side effect profile for the .5mg daily dose is lower than that of the .1mg and .05mg daily doses.

 

[Bryan]

The GSK trials used 0.5mg per day and 2.5mg per day. 0.5mg dutasteride was found to be more effective than 5mg finasteride, and 2.5mg was far better than either.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? I wouldn't consider an improvement of 11.5% (2.5 mg versus 0.5 mg) to be "far better".

 

[Pondle]

Bryan, what figures are you working from? Looking at the mean hair count at 36 weeks, I see 2.5mg generated 119.8 hairs, while 0.5mg was good for 84.3. So the 0.5mg dose was only about 70% as good as 2.5mg?

 

[JWM]

So what the heck? Is dutasteride better than finasteride or what?

 

[Bryan]

Bryan, what figures are you working from? Looking at the mean hair count at 36 weeks, I see 2.5mg generated 119.8 hairs, while 0.5mg was good for 84.3. So the 0.5mg dose was only about 70% as good as 2.5mg?

It's a little misleading to go by JUST the absolute number of generated hairs over baseline. You need to compare the results relative to placebo. After 24 weeks (which was the end of the treatment period), the 0.5 mg dose grew 125.1 more hairs than placebo. After the same period of time, the 2.5 mg dose grew 139.5 more hairs than placebo. Therefore, the larger dose showed an improvement of 139.5 / 125.1 = 1.115 = 11.5% over the smaller dose.

Bryan

 

[Jacobo]

Two thoughts about this study

- 1 sq cm surface?? = circle with 1.12 cms diameter?? Are they sure they have not used 1 cm diameter circle (and then the results will be as in the main study)

- Anyway, the area used by the study is far too small. If they use an area of that size in my crown, I think my haircount is 1 hair. If another one pops out next spring, I ll have an astonishing 100 % increase. Also, what happens with the hair at the edges, they have to be fully inside the line to count - as in football to be valid a goal-, or just half, or 2/3 or what?? The area covered is 5 times smaller than in the other study, the decisions they take about this "borderline" hairs will have more impact than in a bigger area.

 

[Bryan]

- 1 sq cm surface?? = circle with 1.12 cms diameter?? Are they sure they have not used 1 cm diameter circle (and then the results will be as in the main study)

Hmmm....well, let's see: considering how they're doctors and scientists, my wild guess is that they know the difference between 1 square centimeter and a 1 centimeter diameter circle!

- Anyway, the area used by the study is far too small. If they use an area of that size in my crown, I think my haircount is 1 hair.

That's why they didn't use YOU as a test-subject! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Balding_1]

This is really confusing. Bryan in your first posts it seems that you believe dutasteride to be not as good as finasteride based on this study. In your later posts it seems you are shaking this study off as some sort of "fluke". So help a guy out and tell me what is your opinion?

 

[Jacobo]

Bryan,

I (and you) have seen bigger mistakes than that in more important subject than this made for people even smarter than the ones who made the study. Also, doctors don't study geometry at University. I cannot see the point in being ironic here, but if you are happy, everybody happy.

Anyway, I still think that the size of the area covered is really important. 1 study = 200 people, 5 sq cm p head. The other, 20 people, 1 sq cm. In the first you are studying 1000 sq cm. In the second, 20 sq cm. This is what I was trying to remark -without success I suppose-

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

Bryan,

I (and you) have seen bigger mistakes than that in more important subject than this made for people even smarter than the ones who made the study. Also, doctors don't study geometry at University. I cannot see the point in being ironic here, but if you are happy, everybody happy.

Anyway, I still think that the size of the area covered is really important. 1 study = 200 people, 5 sq cm p head. The other, 20 people, 1 sq cm. In the first you are studying 1000 sq cm. In the second, 20 sq cm. This is what I was trying to remark -without success I suppose-

you're right geometry is studied in high school not in college...lol

 

[Bryan]

This is really confusing. Bryan in your first posts it seems that you believe dutasteride to be not as good as finasteride based on this study. In your later posts it seems you are shaking this study off as some sort of "fluke". So help a guy out and tell me what is your opinion?

The first brief comment I made about how dutasteride didn't do quite as well as finasteride was intended to be just a humorous remark. Everybody knows that dutasteride works a little better than finasteride, but the results in this newer small study were obviously just a statistical fluke based on its small size.

Bryan

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

do you think 34 people is enough to get accurate results? seems a little small to me.

Yes, it's only a small trial, but that's mitigated a bit by the fact that they used identical twins.

i thought it was "mitigated" :roll:

 

[Bryan]

do you think 34 people is enough to get accurate results? seems a little small to me.

Yes, it's only a small trial, but that's mitigated a bit by the fact that they used identical twins.

i thought it was "mitigated" :roll:

It was. That's what I said.

Are you feeling ok this morning? Do you have a hangover, or something?

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

do you think 34 people is enough to get accurate results? seems a little small to me.

Yes, it's only a small trial, but that's mitigated a bit by the fact that they used identical twins.

i thought it was "mitigated" :roll:

It was. That's what I said.

Are you feeling ok this morning? Do you have a hangover, or something?

Nope, I dont drink

 

[powersam]

Bryan - thing about this that worried me though was that i've always assumed that effectiveness was basically a result of the amount of dht inhibition. hence my feeling quite secure using a dose of 0.5mg dutasteride 5 times a fortnight. as this inhibits more dht than finasteride 1mg and 5mg daily i thought it would be at least as effective. maybe not?

 

[Bryan]

I'm sure it's at least as effective. Aren't you?

 

[Goingat20]

Bryan - thing about this that worried me though was that i've always assumed that effectiveness was basically a result of the amount of dht inhibition. hence my feeling quite secure using a dose of 0.5mg dutasteride 5 times a fortnight. as this inhibits more dht than finasteride 1mg and 5mg daily i thought it would be at least as effective. maybe not?

hey mate, what made you lower your dosage?, i too am taking approx 5 duts every fortnight...

 

[powersam]

small amount of frontal shedding, which stopped with the lower dose. hair has taken no negative turns.