Look, there’re patients unable to lerate existing therapies like finasteride or pical minoxidil.
The in vitro data from cultured cells documented various wavelength ranges that will optimize stimulation of DNA synthesis, that, ostensibly, promotes growth factors to grow hair.
Besides, an alternate effective therapy going to be very useful. The question is. Who will conduct this study? For example, and doctors continue to sell or recommend them, it’s unlikely businesses gonna be motivated to test alternate wavelengths or dosing regimens, as long as patients continue to purchase existing LLLT devices. So this device has not been used to conduct a controlled study. It’s a well-known fact that the optimal study population for standardized LLLT device evaluation are men with moderate thinning, very short/shaved blonde hair, and fair skin so identical dosing regimens might be used and very similar light dose should be expected to pass through hair and skin to reach cellular targets.
Inherent limitations in study design and clinical application will apply as long as dosing schedules will not consider melanin and similar chromophores in hair and skin and as long as stationary application of light beams occur that can’t hope to stimulate cellular targets outside their beams. Only one device currently cleared for use includes a wavelength promoting optimal DNA synthesis in cell cultures, as previously noted in this series. In addition to how this information should be used to assist patients in decision making if they are considering the purchase of a cleared and legally distributed LLLT device, limitations of methodologies gonna be discussed. In this final installment evaluating the science and application of LLLT to treat hair loss, evidence could be evaluated in the context of recent published data, recognized methods to measure treatment response, and known properties of biostimulation. Awareness of how to interpret or evaluate this methodology is important for readers to understand, if you are going to evaluate the accuracy of study conclusions.
Investigators must be experienced in photo preparation of the study area as well as how to photograph for uniform before and after data collection accuracy and ease of comparison, when evaluating phototrichogram data intended to compare hair counts. Hair counts are tedious and difficult and require adherence to specific comparative techniques. Number of laser diodes, table 1 compares device characteristics including wavelength controlled trials. Dramatic hair growth claims could be an indication for closer scrutiny. When not readily corroborated by visual assessment, credibility of hair count data accuracy can also be suggested by comparing reported hair counts to results from other credible studies of recognized hair growth promoters. Not for the largest study with the Laser Comb, to compare device results, similar data points just like percentage hair count increase or absolute hair counts were used and can be found in Table Absolute hair counts from raw data were available for the smaller helmet studies. In performing data reanalysis, first the LLLT device data was compared to an average 15percent increase in hair counts achieved with the ‘FDAapproved’ finasteride.
There were two separate published studies sponsored by the helmet manufacturer referred to as the Top Hat device.
Both of the published studies regarding this device were small, and as noted, the study duration was only 16 weeks.
Not only did these reports indicate a growth response comparable to those seen with finasteride achieved after only 4 therapy months they far exceeded them. Actually, in both studies, published phototrichograms revealed ‘nonuniformity’ in hair length and camera perspective. There were no published global photos. Actually, for women, therefore this number was a whopping 50percentage increase, In the male study, average increased hair counts were 65. Visual analysis of the published phototrichograms suggested that were published, did not support hair growth claims.
One study included only males and another, only females. 15percent increase was 100, and nearly 96percentage for the female study, In the male study, the percentage of patients with a >. Besides, evidence supporting efficacy of current LLLT devices is fraught with limitations due to erroneous or improper use of existing hair growth promoting assessment methodology and with study designs that don’t consider known variables affecting light transmission for biostimulation, to summarize.
Credible evidence to support effectiveness for MOST patients who use these devices is lacking, while LLLT may work for should include the caveats listed here. What can we advise patients who ask about LLLT for treating their hair loss? It’s a well as a matter of fact, study methodology made it impossible to know whether various wavelengths used had equal utility, or contribution to results. At no time did researchers indicate which of the light beams was being applied to a given study area neither were explanations offered as to why multiple light beams were part of a device, and how the study model was designed to assess any of them.
Presumably, I’d say in case each laser diode or LED were comparable in biostimulating properties, there would’ve been no need for variation.
While proximity to skin reduces their area of coverage, as mentioned in Part 1, lED lights cover a broader area as they are less coherent and collimated distance from the skin reduces their power.
Light transmission is affected by distance and angulation, in addition to chromophores. Similar limitation in the ability of LLLT to reach all cellular targets on the affected scalp must be considered for stationary devices where light beams can only affect cells in their path. Regardless, these studies did not provide information to elucidate these questions. Only those devices 510 cleared are legal for sale in the United States, and it behooves patients everywhere to be sure any medical device they purchase had been evaluated for safety mislabeled lasers are a safety hazard. Of course, in reviewing copious literature establishing the science of biostimulation, it seems if we can identify the optimal wavelength and adjustable dosing regimens, and create the device that can bypass hair and skin to uniformly reach cellular targets, we most possibly will achieve a hair growth benefit. While existing research using LLLT for biostimulation has not determined if results from these devices can be sustained, even so.
In the fourth study to be evaluated, the Laser Comb study had the largest number of patients (n=and did not present raw data.
20 hairs per square centimeter, the Laser Comb achieved this for 3868″percent of men, determined by the actual number of laser diodes; for women, that said, this was ’40 41′, in reviewing the bar graphs for treated patients with increases in hair counts >.
15 increase in hair counts, that, as noted, is comparable to finasteride response in men, it was not possible to determine what percentage of patients achieved a >. Basically, in the Laser Comb study, nearly 50percent of placebo patients reported minimal to improved global appearance, and this response report was increased by approximately 10 among patients who were actually treated. Therefore, since none of the studies provided ‘longterm’ followup, what evidence exists to suggest gains may be sustained?