Category: Uncategorized

Human steroid 5 alpha-reductase type II is a prostate-specific, membrane-associated enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, the most potent androgen in the prostate gland. Genetic variants of this enzyme have been associated with both the development and the progression of prostate cancer. Both finasteride and dutasteride are competitive inhibitors of the type II steroid 5 alpha-reductase that have been effectively used for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finasteride has also been successfully utilized for prostate cancer chemoprevention. We here investigate 5 alpha-reductase inhibition assays in vitro to measure the effect of incubation time on the apparent inhibition constant (K_i) for both constitutional and somatic (prostate cancer) enzyme variants. Our systematic pharmacogenetic analysis shows that both finasteride and dutasteride are slow, time-dependent inhibitors of steroid 5 alpha-reductase type II, and that the inhibition kinetics depend on the 5 alpha-reductase genotype. We also show that, overall, dutasteride is a more efficient steroid 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor than finasteride. Based on our data, we are able to map areas of the enzyme that are responsible for this time-dependent inhibition for either (or both) enzyme inhibitor(s). This comprehensive pharmacogenetic analysis of steroid 5 alpha-reductase variants unveiled significant pharmacogenetic variation for both finasteride and dutasteride and thus should be taken into account when designing protocols for treatment and/or chemoprevention of prostatic diseases with either one of these 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors since there is considerable pharmacogenetic variation for both drugs.

I was wondering if you could give some more input on the new LLT study from the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.

What do the results mean? How does it compare to other treatments like Minoxidil or Finasteride?

Would this be useful for someone like myself who is just starting to have miniaturized follicles and are the results of the study impressive at all?

Is it to early to tell or does this study point to LLT being beneficial?

I found a copy of the study online HERE.

If you read the conclusion (at the end) it states there was some statistical improvement after a 6 month study comparable to Rogaine or Propecia use. But in the long term (over a year) Rogaine and Propecia was better.

The conclusion also stated: “A higher percentage of lasercomb-treated subjects reported overall improvement of hair loss condition and thickness and fullness of hair in self-assessment, though the results did not always reach statistical significance.”

In my experience, the results that I have seen from patients who have used lasers were equivocal. I personally did not see gross improvement when I followed up with them. (Results were not dramatic) Maybe this is my bias, but I have on many occasions seen patients who had dramatic results with Rogaine or Propecia. I have not seen a “worth while” results with laser light therapy alone. Seeing a statistical improvement is not like seeing a cosmetic improvement.

The official publication date for this new patent titles “HAIR HARVESTING DEVICE AND METHOD WITH LOCALIZED SUBSURFACE DERMAL FLUID INSERTION” (Patent number #9,259,236 B1) was officially published by the U.S. Patent Office on February 16, 2016. It describes a method to inject fluid into a localized area of the hair follicular unit, to make FUE easier and better to perform with greater accuracy and less transection or damage to the grafts. This is the 17th US patent issued to Drs. Rassman and Pak in the hair transplant field.

Drs. Rassman and Pak continue to find a better way to do everything that most people take for granted. Our motto is: “There is always a better way” and with out quality focus on hair transplant technology, this is just another small ‘baby step’ to making the field better for all doctors administrating such services.