We appreciated that the story took the opportunity opened by new interest in an experimental hair-loss product, Latisse, to take a broader look at hair loss medicine. We especially liked the section on costs.
Hair loss is one of the elusive golden eggs for drug companies. There are two main products on the market now, but both of them come with significant side effects and questions about long term efficacy.
Any new entrant in the hair loss field tends to generate excitement, and we think that reporters have a duty to see past effusive marketing and cut to the facts. This story did that, to a certain extent, and we hope that, as this product is further studied, more critical analysis is brought to bear on its harms and benefits.
The story provided a more thorough discussion of costs than we have seen in many stories about cosmetic products. It says, “It is, however, expensive: a month’s supply of Latisse can cost up to $150, and that is in amounts appropriate for use merely on the eyelashes. Rogaine, which is also available over the counter now, costs about $25 a month, and a month’s supply of Propecia runs about $75.”
The story did not quantify any of the benefits of Latisse or the other hair loss products.
The story mentioned harms in passing but did not quantify them. We wish it would have. The problem here is that we are talking about off label use, but, at a minimum, some of the harms related to the other, more established products could have been quantified. Instead, the story gives the harms question short shrift, saying, “One advantage of Latisse is that it needs to be applied only once a day (Rogaine needs to be applied twice; Propecia is taken once daily), and does not seem to cause reactions in people who are allergic to minoxidil.”
We wish that the story had provided some information about the effectiveness of hair loss products. We only get the one true believer’s comment “that (Latisse) has worked for about 70 percent of his patients.”
We also would have liked to have seen a comment about the need for continuing use of the products.
The story does a great job avoiding what may be better termed fear-mongering in a case like this. Often stories about cosmetic medicine make people feel like their aging selves are inadequate. This story actually has a little fun with the idea of men being paranoid about their hair loss without minimizing the very real anxiety that hair loss causes. We did think one comment from Dr. Bernstein seemed to medicalize baldness. He said, that “it’s important to remember that baldness is unlike other conditions where you can progress past the point of being helped. …Once we have a cure for hair loss, everyone will be able to benefit.”
We think this one is a wobbler. The story did quote two hair loss specialists. We wish it had gone a little broader in scope and talked with someone who is not currently prescribing Latisse and could speak to the safety and efficacy of an uNPRoven product like this.
The story discusses a number of alternatives, and even provides price information for some. It says, for example, “For those too impatient to wait, there is also the bold and fashionable solution of shaving one’s head.” We do wish, though, that some comparative effectiveness information had been given.
The story makes it clear that Latisse is a prescription product sold for eyelashes but being used off label by some doctors for hair loss.
The product definitely appears to be novel, and the story does a good job placing it in the right context.
The story went well beyond any news release. In fact, unlike other stories we have seen about emerging cosmetic therapies, this story may not be a big hit with the product’s manufacturer. The man in the lead anecdote, for example, says that he has stopped using the product because it is too expensive.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like