Loading…
Comparitive Effectiveness and Finasteride Vs Serenoa Repens in Male Androgenetic Alopecia: A Two-Year Study
The objective of this open label study is to determine the effectiveness of Serenoa repens in treating male androgenetic alopecia (AGA), by comparing its results with finasteride. For this purpose, we enrolled 100 male patients with clinically diagnosed mild to moderate AGA. One group received Seren...
Saved in:
Published in: | International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology 2012-10, Vol.25 (4), p.1167-1173 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Request full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | The objective of this open label study is to determine the effectiveness of Serenoa repens in treating male androgenetic alopecia (AGA), by comparing its results with finasteride. For this purpose, we enrolled 100 male patients with clinically diagnosed mild to moderate AGA. One group received Serenoa repens 320 mg every day for 24 months, while the other received finasteride 1 mg every day for the same period. In order to assess the efficacy of the treatments, a score index based on the comparison of the global photos taken at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T24) of the treatment, was used. The results showed that only 38% of patients treated with Serenoa repens had an increase in hair growth, while 68% of those treated with finasteride noted an improvement. Moreover finasteride was more effective for more than half of the patients (33 of 50, i.e. 66%), with level II and III alopecia. We can summarize our results by observing that Serenoa repens could lead to an improvement of androgenetic alopecia, while finasteride confirmed its efficacy. We also clinically observed, that finasteride acts in both the front area and the vertex, while Serenoa repens prevalently in the vertex. Obviously other studies will be necessary to clarify the mechanisms that cause the different responses of these two treatments. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0394-6320 2058-7384 |
DOI: | 10.1177/039463201202500435 |