01Why this is not the 65 versus 37 investigator row
Investigators at 12 months rated 65% of men on PROPECIA as having increased hair growth versus 37% on placebo. That is a clinic visit score. The independent panel at the same month was 48 versus 7.
Mixing the two percents in one sentence is how blogs invent a third number. This page keeps the panel pair. Hair-count millimeters live in the stay-on note, not here.
02What year two did to the same panel
At 2 years, an increase in hair growth was demonstrated in 66% of men treated with PROPECIA, compared with 7% of men treated with placebo. Placebo stayed at 7%. Drug moved.
Men who stayed on are the denominator that matters here. The stay-on probe is why people keep swallowing. This URL stays on the photographs.
03The five-year photograph split
At 5 years, 48% of men on PROPECIA had an increase, 42% had no change (no further visible progression from baseline), and 10% had lost hair versus baseline. Placebo: 6% increase, 19% no change, 75% lost hair.
Forty-eight percent at year five is not a copy-paste of month 12. The placebo collapse is the other half of that table. Do not read only the drug column.
04The 12-month 48 versus 7 read
At 12 months, 48% of men treated with PROPECIA had an increase compared with 7% of men treated with placebo. That pair is the photograph job on this page.
It is a group rating of pictures, not a promise your crown will look finished at day 365. Finpecia 1 mg does not reprint the panel under a Cipla logo.
05Who sat for those photographs
Three 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies enrolled 1879 men, 18 to 41, with mild to moderate androgenetic alopecia, 88% Caucasian. Two vertex studies enrolled 1553. The anterior mid-scalp study enrolled 326.
Primary endpoints were hair count and patient self-assessment. Investigator scores and photograph ratings were secondary. All men used a specified tar-based shampoo in the first 2 years so dermatitis would not confuse the scalp read.
06How the independent panel scored
Blinded ratings of standardized head photographs, using the same 7-point scale as the investigator visits, based on increase or decrease in scalp hair. The panel did not sit in the room with the man.
That distance is why this URL is not the investigator 65% versus 37% row. Different eyes, same scale family.