Request Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to upgrade your Flash Player This is replaced by the Flash content.
Place your alternate content here and users without the Flash plugin or with
Javascript turned off will see this. Content here allows you to leave out
noscript tags. Include a link to bypass the detection if you wish. You need to upgrade your Flash Player This is replaced by the Flash content.
Place your alternate content here and users without the Flash plugin or with
Javascript turned off will see this. Content here allows you to leave out
noscript tags. Include a link to bypass the detection if you wish. You need to upgrade your Flash Player This is replaced by the Flash content.
Place your alternate content here and users without the Flash plugin or with
Javascript turned off will see this. Content here allows you to leave out
noscript tags. Include a link to bypass the detection if you wish. You need to upgrade your Flash Player This is replaced by the Flash content.
Place your alternate content here and users without the Flash plugin or with
Javascript turned off will see this. Content here allows you to leave out
noscript tags. Include a link to bypass the detection if you wish. The objective of the PROPECIA Twins study was to see how effective PROPECIA was compared to placebo in treating male pattern hair loss (MPHL) in 9 pairs of male identical twins over 12 months.
How the Study Was Done
The PROPECIA Twins study was a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, study. Some terms explained:
Placebo-controlled: in each pair of twins, one was taking PROPECIA, and the other was taking a placebo (a dummy pill that looks identical to real PROPECIA).
Randomized: the decision as to which twin was taking PROPECIA was decided by a completely random process.
Double-blind: none of the doctors who administered the study, nor any of the twins taking part knew which twins were taking PROPECIA and which were taking placebo.
Both twins in each pair had the same Norwood/ Hamilton hair loss classification (i.e. were at similar stages of hair loss) at the start of the study.
The results were measured by assessing standardized clinical photographs, hair counts and patient self-assessment questionnaires.
Results
Photographic
After 1 year, the photographic assessments showed that the group taking PROPECIA had significant improvements when compared against baseline (how their hair was when they started), unlike the placebo group.
Hair count
All patients taking PROPECIA with data after 1 year showed an increase in hair count, whereas 44% of those who received placebo lost hair.
Patient self-assessment
After 1 year, more patients receiving PROPECIA reported improvement than patients receiving placebo on each of the 7 hair growth questions.