Premium
QR 678 & QR678 Neo Vs PRP—A randomised, comparative, prospective study
Author(s) -
Kapoor Rinky,
Shome Debraj,
Vadera Sapna,
Ram M. Shiva
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of cosmetic dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.626
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1473-2165
pISSN - 1473-2130
DOI - 10.1111/jocd.13398
Subject(s) - vellus hair , medicine , hair loss , prospective cohort study , dermatology , randomized controlled trial , hair growth , double blind , surgery , physiology , pathology , placebo , alternative medicine , scalp
Background Hair plays a significant role in shaping the appearance of an individual. Loss of hair can lead to serious effects on social esteem of an individual. The most common cause of hair loss is Androgenetic Alopecia (AGA).This hereditary disorder followed a specific pattern causing progressive thinning of hair in both Men and Women. Aims The aim of the current study is to compare and evaluate the efficacy of QR678 therapy versus PRP in the treatment of Male Androgenetic Alopecia. Since QR678 and QR678 Neo have been found to be formulations equivalent in efficacy, the results would be the same with either formulation. Methods A prospective, comparative, single‐blind study was carried out with 2 groups of 25 patients each. Intradermal injections of QR678 formulations and PRP were injected in group A and B respectively. Hair pull test, Video microscopic assessment, Global Photographic assessment was done and patient’s subjective assessment was done through questionnaire at the end of the study. Results were evaluated after 6 months and follow up was done till 1 year. Results 100% reduction in hair fall was noted at the end of 6 months in the QR678 group which was maintained for 1 year. Video microscopic evaluation showed that the hair density, terminal hair density, vellus hair density and shaft diameter were significantly better in QR678 group ( P < .005) than the PRP group. Since QR678 and QR678 Neo formulatons are equivalent in efficacy, the results of tthis trial can be attributed to be the same, irrespective of the formulation used. Conclusion The bioengineered formulation of QR678 proved to be more beneficial for Male Androgenetic Alopecia (Male pattern hair loss) compared to PRP. A comparative study between QR678 and PRP with long term follow‐up will widen our spectra of knowledge.