2023
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41681
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Real-World Effectiveness, Safety, and Tolerability of Cetosomal Minoxidil 5% Alone and a Fixed Drug Combination of Cetosomal Minoxidil 5% With Finasteride 0.1% in the Management of Androgenetic Alopecia (Inbilt Study)

Abstract: Introduction Topical minoxidil 5% is a widely used medication in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) but is usually associated with adverse events (AE) such as scalp irritation, dryness, and itching. This prompted the development of nonalcoholic solutions, and cetosomal minoxidil was the most recent one. Methods Retrospective multicenter data analysis was conducted at 66 centers across India for adult AGA patients. Patients treated with either cetosomal minoxidil 5% al… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, compared to traditional minoxidil, the unique cetosomal minoxidil seems to have a few advantages, including the absence of propylene glycol (implicit inconvenience) and a quicker time to dry after application. In a recently published real-world analysis, cetosomal minoxidil solutions were found to be effective and tolerable in AGA [20]. In our study, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of efficacy for any of the parameters.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 42%
“…However, compared to traditional minoxidil, the unique cetosomal minoxidil seems to have a few advantages, including the absence of propylene glycol (implicit inconvenience) and a quicker time to dry after application. In a recently published real-world analysis, cetosomal minoxidil solutions were found to be effective and tolerable in AGA [20]. In our study, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of efficacy for any of the parameters.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 42%