Tweet
Since English is not my mother language, sorry in advance if I make mistakes, I will try to do my best…
There is a long discussion about topical finasteride, it is a topic we are talking about from year 2000 to now, but I think there are some questions about that, that have not been considered with the right approach and are not solved yet. And in some cases, it would be easy to solve some of them.
Considering some studies and the experience of the users in the forums in my humble opinion there is a general consensus, topical finasteride works, the unsolved discussion is about if it works only due to the systemic absorption or if it would be plausible to get good cosmetic results without systemic absorption (and side effects).
It is not corret to say “topical finasteride has systemic absorption”, because with high enough concentration, almost every drug would have systemic absorption. One of the main problems of the different studies and experiences is the % concentration used. Topical finasteride has been mostly used with an hidroalcoholic vehicle similar to minoxidil vehicle (finasteride is soluble in alcohol but not in water) in concentrations that go generally from 0,05% to 0,25%.
If I am not mistaken and we consider, for example, a 0,1% 2ml/day then we are using 2mg of finasteride per day. If we assume a reduced systemic absorption of 10%?*, then we are using a equivalent 0,2mg oral finasteride per day plus the topical effect…so…It is not a scientific conclusion but a common sense conclusion to think that 0,2mg/day side effects=0,1% 2ml/day side effects. If we are worried about systemic effect and we assume a 10% absortion it seems that 0,1% lotion probably does not solve our problem.
If we think about the oral finasteride studies, to avoid systemic effect we should use a lotion with systemic absortion under 0,05mg/day. Considering the 10% absortion we are using, the lotion should be a 0,025% lotion, much more less than the % generally used.
Maybe with that % we are not going to get good results but I think this is the approach that is needed to get the response we are looking for.
1st.- Determine the maximum %lotion that has not or minimum systemic effect.
2nd.- Determine if with the % obtained in the 1st point we have cosmetic effect or not.
To solve both points should be very easy and very cheap in comparison with other studies that have been done, and we would get a huge advance in our discussions about this eternal topic.
In 1998 there was an Italian study using a 0,005% concentration, and it claimed to have obtained good results without evidence of systemic effects (I have the study, is not a “myth”), the problem was that they did not show concrete numeric data of the values of the hormones, a reduced sample that included women, and cosmetic results based in subjective perception and in what they called “wash test”. Anyway, It was a promising study with statistically significative results but it was not further developed.
*(I am using the absortion % labelled of a known hidroalcoholic testosterone gel, that due to its structure I think can be appropriate, but it is only a reference, not a dogma %)
There is a long discussion about topical finasteride, it is a topic we are talking about from year 2000 to now, but I think there are some questions about that, that have not been considered with the right approach and are not solved yet. And in some cases, it would be easy to solve some of them.
Considering some studies and the experience of the users in the forums in my humble opinion there is a general consensus, topical finasteride works, the unsolved discussion is about if it works only due to the systemic absorption or if it would be plausible to get good cosmetic results without systemic absorption (and side effects).
It is not corret to say “topical finasteride has systemic absorption”, because with high enough concentration, almost every drug would have systemic absorption. One of the main problems of the different studies and experiences is the % concentration used. Topical finasteride has been mostly used with an hidroalcoholic vehicle similar to minoxidil vehicle (finasteride is soluble in alcohol but not in water) in concentrations that go generally from 0,05% to 0,25%.
If I am not mistaken and we consider, for example, a 0,1% 2ml/day then we are using 2mg of finasteride per day. If we assume a reduced systemic absorption of 10%?*, then we are using a equivalent 0,2mg oral finasteride per day plus the topical effect…so…It is not a scientific conclusion but a common sense conclusion to think that 0,2mg/day side effects=0,1% 2ml/day side effects. If we are worried about systemic effect and we assume a 10% absortion it seems that 0,1% lotion probably does not solve our problem.
If we think about the oral finasteride studies, to avoid systemic effect we should use a lotion with systemic absortion under 0,05mg/day. Considering the 10% absortion we are using, the lotion should be a 0,025% lotion, much more less than the % generally used.
Maybe with that % we are not going to get good results but I think this is the approach that is needed to get the response we are looking for.
1st.- Determine the maximum %lotion that has not or minimum systemic effect.
2nd.- Determine if with the % obtained in the 1st point we have cosmetic effect or not.
To solve both points should be very easy and very cheap in comparison with other studies that have been done, and we would get a huge advance in our discussions about this eternal topic.
In 1998 there was an Italian study using a 0,005% concentration, and it claimed to have obtained good results without evidence of systemic effects (I have the study, is not a “myth”), the problem was that they did not show concrete numeric data of the values of the hormones, a reduced sample that included women, and cosmetic results based in subjective perception and in what they called “wash test”. Anyway, It was a promising study with statistically significative results but it was not further developed.
*(I am using the absortion % labelled of a known hidroalcoholic testosterone gel, that due to its structure I think can be appropriate, but it is only a reference, not a dogma %)
Comment