[TheAnimus]

Slightly O/T. A buddy of mine was saying last night that his lady suggested looking at a hair regrowth product, on inspecting the packaging and marketing material he found the wonderful claim:

"Up-to 4 times more effective than a placebo in clinical testing"

[publicfig]

You would be surprised at how many medicines on the market compare effectivity to placebo. It's mostly done in instances where there is a chance that the drug may not even work. By comparing it to a placebo, you're as close to as you can be to leveling the playing field to show it is more effective than doing nothing.

[andy_boot]

ofcourse this claim also included the wonderful phrase: "Up-to " implying that several trials were not so effetive

[maaku]

Or simply being aware of the fact that there is statistical variation.

[foobarqux]

There are hair loss products, such as Propecia, that are effective. Unfortunately the side effects can be severe: low testosterone, loss of libido, infertility, erectile dysfunction.

Anyone considering hair loss medication should do some concerted research.

[fkmsdta]

Anybody considering Propecia should SERIOUSLY consider the consequences. Losing your hair, especially as a young man, might be stressful. But consider the possible alternative of never again being able to achieve an erection. Multiple case studies have indicated that Propecia can cause indefinite sexual dysfunction, even after you quit taking the drug. The anecdotal evidence online is much worse.

So tread carefully. The set of women who are sexually attracted to bald men is much, much larger than the set of women who are sexually attracted to men who are unable to have sex.

[kmfrk]

Just try out Rogaine/Regaine (whatever it's called there). The active ingredients are minoxidil and cutane.

They're off-the-counter products, but you still might want to talk to your doctor about it, not because there are any significant side effects, but because it's a good habit.

[_k]

There's a drug on the market that's taken by patients who had prostate cancer. It grows back your hair and is being bought off - label for it. I forgot the name.

[drpgq]

That is Propecia

[arkades]

When (real) clinical trials are constructed against placebo, the statistical testing is constructed accordingly. If you were comparing against an existing drug, for instance, you might be testing to show it's equal-to or equal-or-better-than (perhaps your new drug is cheaper, or works on a different metabolic pathway, or has fewer side effects, that make it worth adding to the formulary if it otherwise has equal effectiveness). If an existing treatment doesn't exist, you'd compare against placebo, but now the stats testing would be specifically for superiority.

[disgruntledphd2]

You know, upon thinking about it, I'm not sure that many (or even most) clinical trials use one-sided testing. It makes sense to do so, and would increase power for the particular side chosen, but I can't recall ever seeing it in a paper.

[arkades]

I've seen it in a couple of low-key (read: Non-FDA) trials, but for anything FDA-scale I think most people are wary about submitting studies that presume their subject can't possibly have -worse- results. If it's one of the early Phase 3's, it's just an unwarranted assumption, and people will be all over you for picking a more lenient study design without damn good reason to.