Hair Growth From Diabetes Treatment Heberprot- P

[Janko]

Full benefits of this thread goes to @Marconi. He has problems with English so I am translating.
Exact Translation:

There is a experimental drug, that works as diabetes treatment: Heberprot-P. https://oncubamagazine.com/economy-business/heberprot-p-medical-breakthrough-and-commercial-promise/
Marconi has a friend who has a diabetes and is trying this treatment. Once when he was in a waiting room at the doctor he was talking to a guy, who for some reason got injection not only to leg, but also to his skin on the head. That guy was norwood 6 and on completely bald areas started to grow thick, healthy and pigmented hair. Minoxidil,finasteride were also discovered by accident. Heberprot-P contain epidermaly growing factors and maybe the hair loss is also linked somehow to insulin.
P.S. If you will have question to this thread write it here and I will translate possible answer from Marconi. I will also try to find out if its possible to get somehow the pictures of the regrowth.

 

[yulley]

I think it's basically useless to start the discussion without bringing any kind of proof, so please add some photos and then people will surely be open to talk about it.

 

[ZenHead]

Since it is experimental, I assume it’s not on the market anywhere yet. Do you know what phase this is in?

 

[Murkey Thumb]

You have to travel to Cuba to get this. Not sure anybody will try it unless some documented evidence appears.

 

[Marconi]

in Slovak Republic too

 

[Marconi]

[QUOTE = "Murkey Thumb, post: 1657313, člen: 133716"] Musíte cestovať na Kubu, aby ste to dostali. Nie ste si istí, že to niekto vyskúša, ak sa nejaké zdokumentované dôkazy nezobrazia. [/ QUOTE]

http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2016-06-08/heberprot-p-registered-in-23-countries

 

[IdealForehead]

Wow that's wild. In theory one could imagine it could work. This stuff is just epidermal growth factor (EGF). There is a full article summarizing its use for healing diabetic foot ulcers here for free:

http://www.medicc.org/mediccreview/index.php?issue=23&id=287&a=vahtml

In honesty, it reads a bit like a Cuban promo article to try to get broader approval for the drug. But that does not mean the drug is flawed.

They explain that it must be injected into the skin as it degrades too easily as a topical. They provide data and science demonstrating how it successfully accelerates ulcer healing of the skin. It certainly looks good for that purpose.

I looked for any data on how this would affect hair, and epidermal growth factor (EGF) is in fact a powerful switch for anagen/catagen signalling (growth/stop) in hair. EGF binding to its receptor (EGFR) triggers the hair to enter anagen (growth), and it seems to stay in anagen as long as EGF continues to bind:

These data suggest that EGFR signaling is indispensable for the initiation of hair growth. Continuous expression of epidermal growth factor prevents entry into the catagen phase. We propose that epidermal growth factor functions as a biologic switch that is turned on and off in hair follicles at the beginning and end of the anagen phase of the hair cycle, guarding the entry to and exit from the anagen phase.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12714603​

If this is legitimate and this is proven to be an effective new therapy, it could represent a completely new approach to treating hair loss, regardless of the cause of hair loss. Sufficient EGF stimulation might kick a silent follicle into anagen and keep it there as long as EGF is present.

This could represent a last line salvage therapy for people who fail to respond to traditional measures (eg. @whatevr, @Sanchez1234, or @Georgie (although georgie I still think you need to give the new estrogen 3-6 months before calling it that)). Given that it has powerful wound healing abilities, it could also possibly kick fibrosed or near dead follicles back into life, which could give hope to those with advanced Norwoods.

The biggest danger of this would be (as is usual for any growth factor or stem cell therapy) stimulating skin cancer. This is mentioned only passingly in the Cuban article. Here is a more detailed article on the subject, which suggests EGF activity is critically involved with most skin cancers:

The epidermal growth factor receptor is a cell membrane growth factor receptor that plays a key role in cancer development and progression. Epidermal growth factor receptor-activated signalling pathways control cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis and metastatic spread in the majority of human epithelial cancers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12036420
​

I think based on what's known above about EGF and hair cycles, it would almost certainly provide hair growth benefits. It would likely best be administered via a PRP-style scalp microinjection approach. @Georgie had found and posted a DIY microinjection unit from China. If anyone is brave or desperate enough, I bet this would probably work.

But of course user beware. This might need to be used long term (no known time interval or dosage), and it might possibly cause skin cancer. Who knows. It might not even truly work, even if there's science and anecdotes now saying it could.

Very interesting possible new route of treatment! I think this could definitely become groundbreaking. More interesting than a lot of things people hype on this site. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Saulus]

You know what else highers the chance of getting skin cancer? A bald head

f*** i need this

 

[Georgie]

You know what else highers the chance of getting skin cancer? A bald head

f*** i need this

HAHA. Word!

 

[Georgie]

Wow that's wild. In theory one could imagine it could work. This stuff is just epidermal growth factor (EGF). There is a full article summarizing its use for healing diabetic foot ulcers here for free:

http://www.medicc.org/mediccreview/index.php?issue=23&id=287&a=vahtml

In honesty, it reads a bit like a Cuban promo article to try to get broader approval for the drug. But that does not mean the drug is flawed.

They explain that it must be injected into the skin as it degrades too easily as a topical. They provide data and science demonstrating how it successfully accelerates ulcer healing of the skin. It certainly looks good for that purpose.

I looked for any data on how this would affect hair, and epidermal growth factor (EGF) is in fact a powerful switch for anagen/catagen signalling (growth/stop) in hair. EGF binding to its receptor (EGFR) triggers the hair to enter anagen (growth), and it seems to stay in anagen as long as EGF continues to bind:

These data suggest that EGFR signaling is indispensable for the initiation of hair growth. Continuous expression of epidermal growth factor prevents entry into the catagen phase. We propose that epidermal growth factor functions as a biologic switch that is turned on and off in hair follicles at the beginning and end of the anagen phase of the hair cycle, guarding the entry to and exit from the anagen phase.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12714603​

If this is legitimate and this is proven to be an effective new therapy, it could represent a completely new approach to treating hair loss, regardless of the cause of hair loss. Sufficient EGF stimulation might kick a silent follicle into anagen and keep it there as long as EGF is present.

This could represent a last line salvage therapy for people who fail to respond to traditional measures (eg. @whatevr, @Sanchez1234, or @Georgie (although georgie I still think you need to give the new estrogen 3-6 months before calling it that)). Given that it has powerful wound healing abilities, it could also possibly kick fibrosed or near dead follicles back into life, which could give hope to those with advanced Norwoods.

The biggest danger of this would be (as is usual for any growth factor or stem cell therapy) stimulating skin cancer. This is mentioned only passingly in the Cuban article. Here is a more detailed article on the subject, which suggests EGF activity is critically involved with most skin cancers:

The epidermal growth factor receptor is a cell membrane growth factor receptor that plays a key role in cancer development and progression. Epidermal growth factor receptor-activated signalling pathways control cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis and metastatic spread in the majority of human epithelial cancers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12036420
​

I think based on what's known above about EGF and hair cycles, it would almost certainly provide hair growth benefits. It would likely best be administered via a PRP-style scalp microinjection approach. @Georgie had found and posted a DIY microinjection unit from China. If anyone is brave or desperate enough, I bet this would probably work.

But of course user beware. This might need to be used long term (no known time interval or dosage), and it might possibly cause skin cancer. Who knows. It might not even truly work, even if there's science and anecdotes now saying it could.

Very interesting possible new route of treatment! I think this could definitely become groundbreaking. More interesting than a lot of things people hype on this site. Thanks for sharing.

well, the growth factor product I have bought contains Vascular endothelial growth factor, as well as fibroblast growth factor 9, basic fibroblast growth factor, stem cell factor, insulin-like growth factor, keratinocyte growth factor, and a bunch of other things like noggin, adenosine, amino acids, vitamins and minerals etc etc.
I am very very interested to see how it goes particularly after reading things like this.

 

[ganta]

yeah i think this does work,baldness is completely related with blood pressure, diabetics. current treatment also comes from that.

 

[IdealForehead]

Wow that's wild. In theory one could imagine it could work. This stuff is just epidermal growth factor (EGF). There is a full article summarizing its use for healing diabetic foot ulcers here for free:

http://www.medicc.org/mediccreview/index.php?issue=23&id=287&a=vahtml

In honesty, it reads a bit like a Cuban promo article to try to get broader approval for the drug. But that does not mean the drug is flawed.

They explain that it must be injected into the skin as it degrades too easily as a topical. They provide data and science demonstrating how it successfully accelerates ulcer healing of the skin. It certainly looks good for that purpose.

I looked for any data on how this would affect hair, and epidermal growth factor (EGF) is in fact a powerful switch for anagen/catagen signalling (growth/stop) in hair. EGF binding to its receptor (EGFR) triggers the hair to enter anagen (growth), and it seems to stay in anagen as long as EGF continues to bind:

These data suggest that EGFR signaling is indispensable for the initiation of hair growth. Continuous expression of epidermal growth factor prevents entry into the catagen phase. We propose that epidermal growth factor functions as a biologic switch that is turned on and off in hair follicles at the beginning and end of the anagen phase of the hair cycle, guarding the entry to and exit from the anagen phase.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12714603​

If this is legitimate and this is proven to be an effective new therapy, it could represent a completely new approach to treating hair loss, regardless of the cause of hair loss. Sufficient EGF stimulation might kick a silent follicle into anagen and keep it there as long as EGF is present.

This could represent a last line salvage therapy for people who fail to respond to traditional measures (eg. @whatevr, @Sanchez1234, or @Georgie (although georgie I still think you need to give the new estrogen 3-6 months before calling it that)). Given that it has powerful wound healing abilities, it could also possibly kick fibrosed or near dead follicles back into life, which could give hope to those with advanced Norwoods.

The biggest danger of this would be (as is usual for any growth factor or stem cell therapy) stimulating skin cancer. This is mentioned only passingly in the Cuban article. Here is a more detailed article on the subject, which suggests EGF activity is critically involved with most skin cancers:

The epidermal growth factor receptor is a cell membrane growth factor receptor that plays a key role in cancer development and progression. Epidermal growth factor receptor-activated signalling pathways control cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis and metastatic spread in the majority of human epithelial cancers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12036420
​

I think based on what's known above about EGF and hair cycles, it would almost certainly provide hair growth benefits. It would likely best be administered via a PRP-style scalp microinjection approach. @Georgie had found and posted a DIY microinjection unit from China. If anyone is brave or desperate enough, I bet this would probably work.

But of course user beware. This might need to be used long term (no known time interval or dosage), and it might possibly cause skin cancer. Who knows. It might not even truly work, even if there's science and anecdotes now saying it could.

Very interesting possible new route of treatment! I think this could definitely become groundbreaking. More interesting than a lot of things people hype on this site. Thanks for sharing.

I had a bit more time to look into this this morning and the full evidence I can find is a bit more of a mixed bag.

Evidence in Favor of EGF for Hair Growth

• Mice who are genetically designed to make constant EGF from birth have abnormal hair development, but their hair once developed then never goes into catagen - it stays constantly in anagen (ref).
• EGFR was found to be activated/upregulated during anagen and downregulated/deactivated during telogen (ref).
• EGFR antagonists that are used to treat skin cancer in humans list "alopecia and hair dystrophy" as a side effect (ie. blocking EGF in humans can kill/silence hairs). (ref)
• We have one anecdote in this thread of a diabetic man who has grown hair (unknown amount) on his NW6 with scalp EGF injections.

Evidence Against EGF for Hair Growth

• In another study, mice with defective EGF receptors had a prolonged anagen. (ref) This is the exact opposite of what would be expecting if EGF prolongs anagen. If EGF prolongs anagen, then having broken receptors for it should lead to more catagen. So this is in direct opposition to the above findings.
• It was found by those same researchers that when EGFR is activated, catagen was entered. (ref) Again this opposes the above research.
• Two sheep studies have been done with high dose GFR to stimulate shedding (for "chemical shearing" of the wool) by inducing catagen (ref)

Overall

• One article described EGF/EGFR as having a "dual nature in cellular proliferation and apoptosis" (ref).
• Another article states: "all reports point to a stimulatory effect of EGF on the proliferation of basal keratinocytes and outer root sheath cells but inhibition on proliferation of bulb cells". (ref)

Overall I am more pessimistic with this added info that this would work, given that I think bulb cells are exactly what we want to promote. "Basal keratinocytes and outer root sheath cells" are just the outer skin cells I think that surround the hair follicle. Here is a study showing researchers were able to make perfect but hairless skin from outer root sheath cells, suggesting this is what those types of cells will naturally make. Stimulating those outer skin cells might be helpful for fixing a skin ulcer, but not necessarily then for growing hair.

At the end of the day, all this mouse and sheep experimentation is just that however, and if there is truly someone out there who has grown significant hair from EGF injections, then that is the finding that would matter the most.

So @Marconi and @Janko, is it possible to get more information about how much EGF or what technique this man injected his scalp with, for how long, and how much hair grew? Any chance of photographs of it for proof?

Without that, this is probably a long shot. Growth factors are tricky. To be honest, the people that probably know the most about growth factors are probably guys like Riken, Shiseido, & Replicel. These guys are all experimenting heavily with growth factors in the lab to get their hair stem cells to grow and multiply, so if any of them wanted to develop a growth factor stimulation complex, they'd probably have the best fundamental knowledge needed.

Furthermore, Histogen has already tried putting together a growth factor stimulation complex, and as far as I know, they have left EGF out. Research on EGF goes back to the early 2000s, so if this was an obvious slam dunk, I'm sure they would have put it in there.

 

[IdealForehead]

well, the growth factor product I have bought contains Vascular endothelial growth factor, as well as fibroblast growth factor 9, basic fibroblast growth factor, stem cell factor, insulin-like growth factor, keratinocyte growth factor, and a bunch of other things like noggin, adenosine, amino acids, vitamins and minerals etc etc.
I am very very interested to see how it goes particularly after reading things like this.

I think based on my post above, this will likely have a far greater success rate at growth stimulation than EGF. Your complex composition follows more along the same pattern as Histogen HSC.

Of all the growth stimulant injections though, PRP still has the best consistent evidence for the greatest amount of growth. PRP likely takes advantage of the complex natural balance of nutrients and growth factors in our blood more effectively than these artificial cocktails can.

At some point the artificial cocktails may get good enough to outperform PRP. But it's a tough climb. For example this study found a 30% boost in hair count and 31% increase in density by 12 weeks with standard PRP. It would be very hard for any therapy to beat that.

In my opinion, PRP represents the gold standard for growth factor stimulation of hair.

 

[Georgie]

I think based on my post above, this will likely have a far greater success rate at growth stimulation than EGF. Your complex composition follows more along the same pattern as Histogen HSC.

Of all the growth stimulant injections though, PRP still has the best consistent evidence for the greatest amount of growth. PRP likely takes advantage of the complex natural balance of nutrients and growth factors in our blood more effectively than these artificial cocktails can.

At some point the artificial cocktails may get good enough to outperform PRP. But it's a tough climb. For example this study found a 30% boost in hair count and 31% increase in density by 12 weeks with standard PRP. It would be very hard for any therapy to beat that.

In my opinion, PRP represents the gold standard for growth factor stimulation of hair.

Well there are a few things to consider when comparing the treatments.
Firstly, what is the variation between prp and age-39 in growth factor “concentration” per recommended treatment? I am unsure how one could quantify the strength of growth factors in ones own blood, but there’s a chance that it could possibly vary between clients, and I also doubt that agf and prp have the same values. Is there a chance that there are some people low or lacking in certain factors within their blood which could lead to little or no positive results? Perhaps there is an element of assurity in having (presumably) a certain, clear dose of growth factors.
Secondly, the process of centrifugion and blood plasma separation, whilst not rocket science, is easy to f*** up. Efficacy of prp could depend entirely on the clinic where you receive the treatment. Agf eliminates the ambiguity of correct preparation of the product for delivery. Of course, variation in results can always come down to your genetics and how difficult your hairloss is to treat.
Thirdly, frequency of administration.
PRP is on average done in intervals of:
- Weekly treatments for 4-6 weeks
- Fortnightly treatments for 6-10 weeks
- Monthly treatments
- Bi-yearly treatments

Perhaps the discrepancy in efficacy we see can involve how consistent and how often the treatments are.
AGF is admnistered weekly for 20 weeks, and thereafter it is up to the persons own discretion if they would like to continue with weekly treatments, or reduce ONLY to fortnightly or monthly treatments. Given that it is less expensive than prp, this is an entirely viable option, where PRP is, I would assume, not economically optional at the same rate of treatment. Let’s say hypothetically that prp and agf have a similar dose amount of growth factors (with a few not added to agf - epidermal growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, transforming growth factor, platelet factor interleukin, platelet-derived angiogenesis factor) and have a similar hair count result in a monthly time frame of weekly treatments.
Ok. So then you drop your number of prp treatments, but continue with the same frequency using agf, and most people do not receive prp weekly for any great length of time. Does it not follow that results wane or stagnate with the reduction of treatment, whereas the continual stimulation by growth factors using agf allows for a constant steady incline (obviously to a certain point)?

Yes all of these are fairly obvious, no-brainer points, but I wanted to explain my rationale
Behind not going for prp besides the fact that most people can it and it’s also inordimately expensive. I know that I respond to treatments that stimulate growth factors like bimat and minoxidil, and have also had good experiences with copper peptides for my eyebrows and eyelashes at least (agf contains these), so there may be a chance for me here to utilise these factors (frequency of treatment, consistency of preparation to be injected and growth factor dose amount) to my advantage in order to obtain the results that are not often seen in your run-of-the-mill prp treatment. I also don’t trust any c*** to be totally ungenuine and insincere about how they perform treatments. I do however, trust myself.

If this fails I guess it’s onto hassling people for adipose stem cell treatment.

 

[IdealForehead]

Well there are a few things to consider when comparing the treatments.
Firstly, what is the variation between prp and age-39 in growth factor “concentration” per recommended treatment? I am unsure how one could quantify the strength of growth factors in ones own blood, but there’s a chance that it could possibly vary between clients, and I also doubt that agf and prp have the same values. Is there a chance that there are some people low or lacking in certain factors within their blood which could lead to little or no positive results? Perhaps there is an element of assurity in having (presumably) a certain, clear dose of growth factors.
Secondly, the process of centrifugion and blood plasma separation, whilst not rocket science, is easy to f*** up. Efficacy of prp could depend entirely on the clinic where you receive the treatment. Agf eliminates the ambiguity of correct preparation of the product for delivery. Of course, variation in results can always come down to your genetics and how difficult your hairloss is to treat.
Thirdly, frequency of administration.
PRP is on average done in intervals of:
- Weekly treatments for 4-6 weeks
- Fortnightly treatments for 6-10 weeks
- Monthly treatments
- Bi-yearly treatments

Perhaps the discrepancy in efficacy we see can involve how consistent and how often the treatments are.
AGF is admnistered weekly for 20 weeks, and thereafter it is up to the persons own discretion if they would like to continue with weekly treatments, or reduce ONLY to fortnightly or monthly treatments. Given that it is less expensive than prp, this is an entirely viable option, where PRP is, I would assume, not economically optional at the same rate of treatment. Let’s say hypothetically that prp and agf have a similar dose amount of growth factors (with a few not added to agf - epidermal growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, transforming growth factor, platelet factor interleukin, platelet-derived angiogenesis factor) and have a similar hair count result in a monthly time frame of weekly treatments.
Ok. So then you drop your number of prp treatments, but continue with the same frequency using agf, and most people do not receive prp weekly for any great length of time. Does it not follow that results wane or stagnate with the reduction of treatment, whereas the continual stimulation by growth factors using agf allows for a constant steady incline (obviously to a certain point)?

Yes all of these are fairly obvious, no-brainer points, but I wanted to explain my rationale
Behind not going for prp besides the fact that most people can it and it’s also inordimately expensive. I know that I respond to treatments that stimulate growth factors like bimat and minoxidil, and have also had good experiences with copper peptides for my eyebrows and eyelashes at least (agf contains these), so there may be a chance for me here to utilise these factors (frequency of treatment, consistency of preparation to be injected and growth factor dose amount) to my advantage in order to obtain the results that are not often seen in your run-of-the-mill prp treatment. I also don’t trust any c*** to be totally ungenuine and insincere about how they perform treatments. I do however, trust myself.

If this fails I guess it’s onto hassling people for adipose stem cell treatment.

Yeah I hear you. I definitely think it's worth a try for you. And I can definitely appreciate the financial aspect of PRP.

It's possible our blood factors are all different in concentration, but I'm pretty sure we must all have most of the same basic things in us to live in at least roughly similar amounts. Levels of some of the growth factors from the PRP study I linked with +/- standard deviations are here for reference.

There is definitely also a variable technique to PRP as you say. Even in the study I posted, they refer to two different systems of PRP collection devices (Regen Blood Cell Therapy or Arthrex Angel System). The Regen did dramatically better than the Anthrex during their "activated PRP" trial, where they added calcium to try to increase the potency. (ref)

But in terms of pure power, PRP when properly done definitely consistently gets the best results. It looks like PRP techniques are getting more advanced also. The most impressive result from that study (2017) was using activated Arthrex PRP. After one single session, 6 months later, there was still 56% higher density.

This is an insane finding. One single session of therapy and 6 months later, hair density is still 56% higher than baseline. I am not aware of any therapy that can come close to these results. This is pretty cutting edge PRP. It might be random chance, and I'm not sure who would even offer it, but it shows the potential power of the method.

I'm not sure what technique the PRP clinic I went to uses. I will ask now that I know more about this out of curiosity. For reference, they charged around the equivalent of $1500 AUD for 3 sessions of PRP and 3 sessions of mesotherapy (growth factors and vitamins like AGF39). So 6 sessions total. I went monthly alternating PRP and meso. I didn't get any incredible result, but I don't know if that was poor technique or the fact that I wasn't on a good anti-androgen back then. My mom and sister always rave about it and keep going back.

AGF39 (mesotherapy) is definitely a bargain at $260 USD (according to here). According to their studies, a series of 10 treatments done over 6 months gives a 10% increase in density.

Out of these three approaches we then have:

1) Activated Arthrex PRP - 56% increase in density by 6 months after single session
2) Standard PRP - 31% increase in density by 12 weeks after 3 sessions
3) AGF39 Mesotherapy - 10% increase in density by 6 months after 10 sessions

I don't know how much the Activated Arthrex PRP would be and if it would even be possible to find (or at what cost) but this is by far the strongest growth stimulating technique I've encountered.

(Note: This post was edited in retrospect for basic correctness as I incorrectly read the data the first time and it mixed up on Regen vs. Arthrex)

 

[Georgie]

Yeah I hear you. I definitely think it's worth a try for you. And I can definitely appreciate the financial aspect of PRP.

It's possible our blood factors are all different in concentration, but I'm pretty sure we must all have most of the same basic things in us to live in at least roughly similar amounts. Levels of some of the growth factors from the PRP study I linked with +/- standard deviations are here for reference.

There is definitely also a variable technique to PRP as you say. Even in the study I posted, they refer to two different systems of PRP collection devices (Regen Blood Cell Therapy or Arthrex Angel System). The Regen did dramatically better than the Anthrex during their "activated PRP" trial, where they added calcium to try to increase the potency. (ref)

But in terms of pure power, PRP when properly done definitely consistently gets the best results. It looks like PRP techniques are getting more advanced also. The most impressive result from that study (2017) was using activated Regen PRP. After one single session, 6 months later, there was still 34% higher density.

This is an insane finding. One single session of therapy and 6 months later, hair density is still 34% higher than baseline. I am not aware of any therapy that can come close to these results. This is pretty cutting edge PRP, and I'm not sure who would even offer it, but it shows the potential power of the method.

I'm not sure what technique the PRP clinic I went to uses. I will ask now that I know more about this out of curiosity. For reference, they charged around the equivalent of $1500 AUD for 3 sessions of PRP and 3 sessions of mesotherapy (growth factors and vitamins like AGF39). So 6 sessions total. I went monthly alternating PRP and meso. I didn't get any incredible result, but I don't know if that was poor technique or the fact that I wasn't on a good anti-androgen back then. My mom and sister always rave about it and keep going back.

AGF39 (mesotherapy) is definitely a bargain at $260 USD (according to here). According to their studies, a series of 10 treatments done over 6 months gives a 10% increase in density.

Out of these three approaches we then have:

1) Activated Regen PRP - 34% increase in density by 6 months after single session
2) Standard PRP - 31% increase in density by 12 weeks after 3 sessions
3) AGF39 Mesotherapy - 10% increase in density by 6 months after 10 sessions

I don't know how much the Activated Regen PRP would be and if it would even be possible to find (or at what cost) but this is by far the strongest growth stimulating technique I've encountered.

You know, it’s intetesting. Most of the positive results I’ve seen from prp have involved women. I get the feeling that we are overall better responders. I wonder if it’s coincidence or something pathological behind it.

I would like to have a look at the studies relating to Regen PRP. I wonder what the population of trilaists with those results was. I suppose again what appealed to me about AGF/SGF is that out of those who were tested, the majority came away with a moderate, good or great hair count. 10% was the mean, so there’s protential for 20-30%.
I shall have a look around on the interwebs to see what the Brisbane-gold coast area has to offer. I beleive thst there are clinics who do “Acell” and “factor4” but I’m not entirely up with how effective they are. From what I have seen and read about regular prp, it doesn’t look like the vast majority achieve much if any more than 10%. 30% seems like it would be the absolute the top tier responder.

I have recently discovered that a clinic on the Gold Coast here does adipose stem cell treatment. That’s probably it for me if this fails. I’ve not many options left and no time to waste. The top of my head is see-through in areas now.

 

[Georgie]

@IdealForehead did a google. Turns out there are numerous clinics that do regen around my city

 

[IdealForehead]

@IdealForehead did a google. Turns out there are numerous clinics that do regen around my city

Well oops Georgie better start over. I read and calculated all the results backwards. Sorry.

It was Activated Arthrex that did really incredibly well (and it was actually a 56% increase in density), not Regen. Regen did poorly. I've reviewed the article again to get it straight and I'll break this up in sections to summarize. Hope this helps.

PRP Comparison Study
The comparison study was done of plain CPunT brand PRP (18 patients), calcium activated Regen brand PRP (3 patients), and calcium activated Arthrex brand PRP (3 patients).

Activated PRP results table is attached for reference. To summarize, the total study outcome was:

- Plain CPunT PRP (18 patients, Result: 31% increase in density after 12 weeks with 3 monthly treatments)
- Activated Arthrex PRP (3 patients, Result: 56% increase in density after 6 months with one treatment)
- Activated Regen PRP (3 patients, Result: 23% decrease in density after 6 months with one treatment)

All the patients were men in their roughly 30s and 40s with NW3 hairlines to start.

So it was activated Arthrex (not Regen) that had the best results. The biggest problem with this though is there were only 3 patients in each activated PRP trial arm, so a large part of this variation might just be random chance (eg. if they had high responders in the Arthrex trial).

Nonetheless, the Arthrex result is incredible. Even high responders to other usual therapies do not get these kinds of results from a single treatment. I've definitely never seen anything else like a 56% increase reported elsewhere. And everyone in the entire study did very well except those three guys in the Regen arm. Either there was something wrong with Regen, or those guys were just the only three nonresponders in the whole trial.

The Principle of Calcium Activation
The idea of "calcium activation" is that a lot of the growth factors involved in making PRP work are ones that are released directly from the platelets themselves. But if you just reinject platelets naturally without pre-activation, they won't necessarily do anything, and may just stay inactive (same as they were when floating in the blood). (from this thread)

By exposing them to calcium first, it triggers them to activate as if they are trying to make a clot, which makes them release all their growth factors, and this makes the therapy much more effective.

The researchers from the PRP comparison study quote several other prior studies that demonstrated also that calcium activation gives better results for hair with PRP. PRP can be calcium activated in different ways (eg. calcium gluconate, calcium chloride) but these do not appear to be all the same. (eg. this thread of researchers/scientists talking about their different preferred means to "calcium activate" their PRP formulations)

Arthrex Protocol for Calcium Activation
The Activated Arthrex PRP process from the study quoted with the 56% gain at 6 months from a single injection was as follows:

(Note: "A-PRP" = autologous PRP = standard PRP solution)

1) The Arthrex Angel system was used to prepare A-PRP (3 mL) from 120 mL of whole blood when the instrument hematocrit level was set to 2%.
2) The A-PRP was then combined with 5 mL of platelet poor plasma to produce 8 mL of A-PRP with a five-fold increase in platelet concentration over whole blood.
3) A-PRP was then activated through the addition of 10% (v/v) calcium gluconate, which was immediately injected into the treatment zone through a 1 mL Luer lock syringe equipped with a 25-gauge needle.
4) Multiple 4 cm2 sections (2 cm × 2 cm squares) of frontal scalp constituted the treatment zone, and each received 1 mL of AA-PRP.

Assessment
There are multiple studies that suggest calcium activated PRP is better than non-activated PRP. I think it would be hard to state with absolute certainty that Activated Arthrex is the best method for PRP for hair though, given that as I said, only 3 patients went through this trial arm.

Perhaps the most reasonable assessment for the difference between the Arthrex vs. Regen results is that it was just random chance the Arthrex trial got the 3 high responders and the Regen trial got the 3 low responders. If these two treatments were in fact identical, and the difference was random chance, then the average result for all 6 guys would have been a 16.5% density increase by 6 months from a single session of activated PRP. But even this would still be a phenomenal result.

So if anyone's ever going to be going for PRP, calcium gluconate activated PRP seems to be the best approach. And to be on the safe side, you would probably want to go with Arthrex. You could inquire to make sure the clinic can do calcium gluconate activated Arthrex and then show them the activation protocol to ensure they follow it.

Again, not sure how available Arthrex is or how many places readily do calcium gluconate activation. But this is what the study says. (Correctly now.)

 

[champpy]

Yeah I hear you. I definitely think it's worth a try for you. And I can definitely appreciate the financial aspect of PRP.

It's possible our blood factors are all different in concentration, but I'm pretty sure we must all have most of the same basic things in us to live in at least roughly similar amounts. Levels of some of the growth factors from the PRP study I linked with +/- standard deviations are here for reference.

There is definitely also a variable technique to PRP as you say. Even in the study I posted, they refer to two different systems of PRP collection devices (Regen Blood Cell Therapy or Arthrex Angel System). The Regen did dramatically better than the Anthrex during their "activated PRP" trial, where they added calcium to try to increase the potency. (ref)

But in terms of pure power, PRP when properly done definitely consistently gets the best results. It looks like PRP techniques are getting more advanced also. The most impressive result from that study (2017) was using activated Regen PRP. After one single session, 6 months later, there was still 34% higher density.

This is an insane finding. One single session of therapy and 6 months later, hair density is still 34% higher than baseline. I am not aware of any therapy that can come close to these results. This is pretty cutting edge PRP, and I'm not sure who would even offer it, but it shows the potential power of the method.

I'm not sure what technique the PRP clinic I went to uses. I will ask now that I know more about this out of curiosity. For reference, they charged around the equivalent of $1500 AUD for 3 sessions of PRP and 3 sessions of mesotherapy (growth factors and vitamins like AGF39). So 6 sessions total. I went monthly alternating PRP and meso. I didn't get any incredible result, but I don't know if that was poor technique or the fact that I wasn't on a good anti-androgen back then. My mom and sister always rave about it and keep going back.

AGF39 (mesotherapy) is definitely a bargain at $260 USD (according to here). According to their studies, a series of 10 treatments done over 6 months gives a 10% increase in density.

Out of these three approaches we then have:

1) Activated Regen PRP - 34% increase in density by 6 months after single session
2) Standard PRP - 31% increase in density by 12 weeks after 3 sessions
3) AGF39 Mesotherapy - 10% increase in density by 6 months after 10 sessions

I don't know how much the Activated Regen PRP would be and if it would even be possible to find (or at what cost) but this is by far the strongest growth stimulating technique I've encountered.

34% increase in density would be significant and noticeable, so there should be photos showing this, correct? Can you link them please, if like to see these amazing PRP results.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

well, the growth factor product I have bought contains Vascular endothelial growth factor, as well as fibroblast growth factor 9, basic fibroblast growth factor, stem cell factor, insulin-like growth factor, keratinocyte growth factor, and a bunch of other things like noggin, adenosine, amino acids, vitamins and minerals etc etc.
I am very very interested to see how it goes particularly after reading things like this.

Why are you trying VEGF? How?

It's recently been demonstrated to be stimulated in white adipose fat by fasting, a paper I read speculated that it may be the reason that intermittent fasting works -- it converts white fat to brown fat via VEGF.