Hi guys, here is a really old article I found on Hairsite about latanoprost. Read my other post which gives the abstract for a recent trial done on latanoprost. has any1 used this stuff?? -------------------
Our prediction: Latanoprost (la-TA-noe-prost) or Xalatan (in U.S and Canada) may very well be the next Rogaine and Propecia. At the very least, Latanoprost has all the characteristics and potentials to be the most popular underground treatment for hair loss, rivaling the like of Spironolactone, Loniten (oral minoxidil), Proscar and Skinoren.
Latanoprost is a kind of eyedrops used to treat patients with glaucoma and/or hypertension of the eye. This drug appears to work by increasing the outflow of fluid from the eye and thus releasing the tension inside.
This is not a new discovery that Latanoprost also acts as an amazingly effective stimulant for hair growth. It has been very well documented in various medical journals that Latanoprost can spur thicker, longer and darker eye lashes. And the effects seem to be quite permanent on people's eyelashes, not like Rogaine when you have to apply to your scalp twice every day for life. The effect of Latanoprost also seems to be very localized. Patients reported thicker, fuller eyelashes only on the eye that was treated, not both.
The spotlight on Latanoprost just got brighter this month when the Archives of Ophthalmology published a well documented incidence of how a 53 year old woman regrew all her eyelashes with the help of Latanoprost. This patient lost all her eyelashes and most of her hair on the scalp for over 5 years. It was suspected that the hair loss was related to an allergic reaction to ibuprofen. Incidentally, this patient is also suffering from glaucoma. Dr. Cioffi of Denver Eye Institute in Portland, Oregon treated this patient with Latanoprost hoping that the medication will regrow her eyelashes as well. Miraculosly, hair began to sprout on the patient's eyelids in as little as 3 weeks. And in less than 3 months, the patient had completely regrown all her eyelashes, considering that they had been barren for over 5 years.
It is easy to draw comparisons between Rogaine and Latanoprost and see how powerful this glaucoma eyedrops is. Few realize that many people, especially women, have been using Rogaine to thicken their eyelashes for quite some time. Many have reported satisfactory results when using Rogaine on eyelashes. Results on the eyelashes are also faster and better than on the scalp. However, when it comes to treating eyelashes, Rogaine pales when compared to Latanoprost. As with using Rogaine on your scalp, it has to be applied twice daily on your eyelashes. While you will see faster results on your eyelashes as opposed to trying to grow hair on your scalp, nobody ever reported having thick full eyelashes from using Rogaine. Also, you will lose any Rogaine induced hair growth on your eyelashes when you discontinue the treatment. On the other hand, Latanoprost's effect seems to be more powerful and potent. Patients reported that full, thick eyelashes can be seen in less than two months. Also, results are permanent in many cases. You do not have to continue with the Latanoprost treatment to maintain the eyelashes.
The first documentation of Latanoprost as a hair stimulant was in 1997 when a group of 43 patients were involved in the study. Researchers believe that Latanoprost has all the potentials to be a baldness treatment. Incidentally, Latanoprost (or Xalatan in U.S) is manufactured by Pharmacia & Upjohn, the same company who manufactures Rogaine, the #1 hair loss treatment in the world. It is unsure why Pharmacia & Upjohn never picked up on Latanoprost's hair stimulant properties. Some suggest that Pharmacia & Upjohn has no incentive to create any competition for its #1 selling hair loss treatment Rogaine. Why spend the time, money and go through the FDA regulatory red tapes once again when they are already the proud owner of the #1 selling hair loss tretment in the world ? The equation simply doesn't add up for Pharmacia & Upjohn. Another product out of Latanoprost would probably cannibalize the existing sales of Rogaine and the only thing to gain for Upjohn is the lost sales from Rogaine, a zero sum game !!
As of now, there is no clinical study to substantiate Latanoprost's effectiveness in growing hair on the scalp. No trials have been planned or initiated by any research groups yet. However, Latanoprost shares all the characteristics of minoxidil (Rogaine) and finasteride (Propecia) as a precursor for an effective hair loss treatment. If you recall, both Rogaine and Propecia were developed based on existing drugs that were formulated for different medical conditions. Rogaine was derived from the drug Loniten (minoxidil), an oral medication for patients with hypertension. Patients who were on Loniten repeatedly reported excessive body, facial and scalp hair growth as side effects. Upjohn leveraged on this side effect reported by Loniten patients and produced a blockbuster hit, ie: Rogaine, for hair loss. Similarly, Proscar (finasteride) was formulated for patients with benign prostate enlargement. Patients also reported hair growth as one of the side effects from Proscar. Merck did the same thing, capitalized on this finding and now manufactures the first ever oral medication for hair loss that rivals Rogaine. History repeats itself and hopefully, some pharmaceutical companies will capitalize on the potential of Latanoprost and offer hair loss sufferers a more potent alternative.
Latanoprost is also the perfect candidate to be the #1 underground treatment for hair loss. Just like the old days when Propecia was still in its embryonic stages, people read about what Proscar could do to hair growth and started a gold rush for the drug, despite the fact that Proscar was formulated for benign prostate enlargement and not for hair loss. Now Latanoprost makes an even better candidate. First, Latanoprost is an eyedrops so it would be easy for people to apply that topically to their scalp. Second, unlike Proscar which is an oral medication and may have serious side effects when taken orally, people may have less reservations using Latanoprost for hair loss since most topical treatments are less invasive to the body.
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:48:09 GMT, Mark M <devi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(Quoting from a poorly-researched post on hairsite)
>"Similarly, Proscar (finasteride) was formulated for patients with benign >prostate enlargement. Patients also reported hair growth as one of the >side effects from Proscar. Merck did the same thing, capitalized on this >finding and now manufactures the first ever oral medication for hair >loss that rivals Rogaine."
ABSOLUTE GARBAGE!
Merck did NOT develop Propecia because Proscar patients reported hairgrowth as a "side-effect"! What a stupid, mindless, Urban Myth!!
> (Quoting from a poorly-researched post on hairsite)
> >"Similarly, Proscar (finasteride) was formulated for patients with benign > >prostate enlargement. Patients also reported hair growth as one of the > >side effects from Proscar. Merck did the same thing, capitalized on this > >finding and now manufactures the first ever oral medication for hair > >loss that rivals Rogaine."
> ABSOLUTE GARBAGE!
> Merck did NOT develop Propecia because Proscar patients reported > hairgrowth as a "side-effect"! What a stupid, mindless, Urban Myth!!
> Bryan
I was under the impression that the above passage describes exactly what happened! How is it wrong? PS please dont get offended, its a sincere question
I emailed Dr. Uno and as it turns out the study most recently published on Latanoprost was done prior to his retirement. I asked him what his initial impression of the drug was versus Minoxidil and the RU58841 trials he conducted. He stated the following.......
"That test was my last work before retirement. Using 0.05% solution, hair grew in bald head of monkeys. It was only for short term study, but the initial effect was comparable with 5% minoxidil or 5% RU58841. I have now no access to use the bald monkeys." - H. Uno
He will not be involved in further trials and did not have any additional information. Soulpt
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:48:09 GMT, Mark M <devi...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Hi guys, here is a really old article I found on Hairsite about >latanoprost. Read my other post which gives the abstract for a recent >trial done on latanoprost. has any1 used this stuff?? >-------------------
>Our prediction: Latanoprost (la-TA-noe-prost) or Xalatan (in U.S and >Canada) may very well be the next Rogaine and Propecia. At the very >least, Latanoprost has all the characteristics and potentials to be >the most popular underground treatment for hair loss, rivaling the >like of Spironolactone, Loniten (oral minoxidil), Proscar and >Skinoren.
>Latanoprost is a kind of eyedrops used to treat patients with glaucoma >and/or hypertension of the eye. This drug appears to work by >increasing the outflow of fluid from the eye and thus releasing the >tension inside.
>This is not a new discovery that Latanoprost also acts as an amazingly >effective stimulant for hair growth. It has been very well documented >in various medical journals that Latanoprost can spur thicker, longer >and darker eye lashes. And the effects seem to be quite permanent on >people's eyelashes, not like Rogaine when you have to apply to your >scalp twice every day for life. The effect of Latanoprost also seems >to be very localized. Patients reported thicker, fuller eyelashes only >on the eye that was treated, not both.
>The spotlight on Latanoprost just got brighter this month when the >Archives of Ophthalmology published a well documented incidence of how >a 53 year old woman regrew all her eyelashes with the help of >Latanoprost. This patient lost all her eyelashes and most of her hair >on the scalp for over 5 years. It was suspected that the hair loss was >related to an allergic reaction to ibuprofen. Incidentally, this >patient is also suffering from glaucoma. Dr. Cioffi of Denver Eye >Institute in Portland, Oregon treated this patient with Latanoprost >hoping that the medication will regrow her eyelashes as well. >Miraculosly, hair began to sprout on the patient's eyelids in as >little as 3 weeks. And in less than 3 months, the patient had >completely regrown all her eyelashes, considering that they had been >barren for over 5 years.
>It is easy to draw comparisons between Rogaine and Latanoprost and see >how powerful this glaucoma eyedrops is. Few realize that many people, >especially women, have been using Rogaine to thicken their eyelashes >for quite some time. Many have reported satisfactory results when >using Rogaine on eyelashes. Results on the eyelashes are also faster >and better than on the scalp. However, when it comes to treating >eyelashes, Rogaine pales when compared to Latanoprost. As with using >Rogaine on your scalp, it has to be applied twice daily on your >eyelashes. While you will see faster results on your eyelashes as >opposed to trying to grow hair on your scalp, nobody ever reported >having thick full eyelashes from using Rogaine. Also, you will lose >any Rogaine induced hair growth on your eyelashes when you discontinue >the treatment. On the other hand, Latanoprost's effect seems to be >more powerful and potent. Patients reported that full, thick eyelashes >can be seen in less than two months. Also, results are permanent in >many cases. You do not have to continue with the Latanoprost treatment >to maintain the eyelashes.
>The first documentation of Latanoprost as a hair stimulant was in 1997 >when a group of 43 patients were involved in the study. Researchers >believe that Latanoprost has all the potentials to be a baldness >treatment. Incidentally, Latanoprost (or Xalatan in U.S) is >manufactured by Pharmacia & Upjohn, the same company who manufactures >Rogaine, the #1 hair loss treatment in the world. It is unsure why >Pharmacia & Upjohn never picked up on Latanoprost's hair stimulant >properties. Some suggest that Pharmacia & Upjohn has no incentive to >create any competition for its #1 selling hair loss treatment Rogaine. >Why spend the time, money and go through the FDA regulatory red tapes >once again when they are already the proud owner of the #1 selling >hair loss tretment in the world ? The equation simply doesn't add up >for Pharmacia & Upjohn. Another product out of Latanoprost would >probably cannibalize the existing sales of Rogaine and the only thing >to gain for Upjohn is the lost sales from Rogaine, a zero sum game !!
>As of now, there is no clinical study to substantiate Latanoprost's >effectiveness in growing hair on the scalp. No trials have been >planned or initiated by any research groups yet. However, Latanoprost >shares all the characteristics of minoxidil (Rogaine) and finasteride >(Propecia) as a precursor for an effective hair loss treatment. If you >recall, both Rogaine and Propecia were developed based on existing >drugs that were formulated for different medical conditions. Rogaine >was derived from the drug Loniten (minoxidil), an oral medication for >patients with hypertension. Patients who were on Loniten repeatedly >reported excessive body, facial and scalp hair growth as side effects. >Upjohn leveraged on this side effect reported by Loniten patients and >produced a blockbuster hit, ie: Rogaine, for hair loss. Similarly, >Proscar (finasteride) was formulated for patients with benign prostate >enlargement. Patients also reported hair growth as one of the side >effects from Proscar. Merck did the same thing, capitalized on this >finding and now manufactures the first ever oral medication for hair >loss that rivals Rogaine. History repeats itself and hopefully, some >pharmaceutical companies will capitalize on the potential of >Latanoprost and offer hair loss sufferers a more potent alternative.
>Latanoprost is also the perfect candidate to be the #1 underground >treatment for hair loss. Just like the old days when Propecia was >still in its embryonic stages, people read about what Proscar could do >to hair growth and started a gold rush for the drug, despite the fact >that Proscar was formulated for benign prostate enlargement and not >for hair loss. Now Latanoprost makes an even better candidate. First, >Latanoprost is an eyedrops so it would be easy for people to apply >that topically to their scalp. Second, unlike Proscar which is an oral >medication and may have serious side effects when taken orally, people >may have less reservations using Latanoprost for hair loss since most >topical treatments are less invasive to the body.
>> (Quoting from a poorly-researched post on hairsite)
>> >"Similarly, Proscar (finasteride) was formulated for patients with benign >> >prostate enlargement. Patients also reported hair growth as one of the >> >side effects from Proscar. Merck did the same thing, capitalized on this >> >finding and now manufactures the first ever oral medication for hair >> >loss that rivals Rogaine."
>> ABSOLUTE GARBAGE!
>> Merck did NOT develop Propecia because Proscar patients reported >> hairgrowth as a "side-effect"! What a stupid, mindless, Urban Myth!!
>> Bryan
>I was under the impression that the above passage describes exactly >what happened! How is it wrong? PS please dont get offended, its a >sincere question
Yikes! That's a good indication of what a "Hot Button" issue that's become for me: I fly off the handle so much whenever that comes up, that now people are afraid to ask me an honest question about it! :-)
Merck knew all about the potential uses for 5a-reductase inhibitors LONG before finasteride ever came out, or was even synthesized for the first time! If I remember correctly, the existence of the 5a-R reduction of testosterone to DHT was first discovered in the very early 1950's; surely the critical importance of DHT for hairloss was known by the 1960's (I have in my own collection some studies from the early 1970's about the levels of DHT in balding and non-balding hair follicles). So I can guarantee you that Merck researchers knew about DHT and balding by the time the 1980's rolled around! And to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, I can post for you a study written by them (yes, I mean Merck researchers) about the time finasteride was first released as Proscar (or maybe even before), in which they discussed the potential uses for such 5a-R inhibitors in the future; and they went down the entire list, mentioning acne, hirsutism, and androgenetic alopecia! They knew all about it.
bryan shelton knows nothing about hair loss.Dht is not the cause of hair loss.Those with a deficiency of 5a-r do not grow body or face hair and do not bald.Now look at us who are prone to hair loss.We can grow body and face hair at the same time we are losing scalp hair,and usually in direct proportions. Finas has been proven to stop the growth of hair in hirsutism.It is the stopping of body/face hair groth freeing up the needed nutrients to flow to the scalp follicles that produce regrowth. If FNS works as claimed,it is supplying the needed nutrients to the scalp follicles.I have posted in the past that it would be stopping the growth of hair permanantly,as in my method,getting the body to produce more nutrients,like converting estrogen to testosterone or getting the nutients to the scalp fro an outside source,such as FNS claims to do.Ernie
|
