Which gives the better results? Rogaine Liquid or Rogaine Foam?


Thanks,
NS.

NS,

Both contain active ingredient minoxidil, but the delivery system is different.

In my opinion, the foam is superior simply because it doesn't contain propylene glycol found in the liquid which sometimes can irritate the scalp. In addition, I feel that in many cases, some of the liquid is lost as it drips down the front or back of your head where the foam appears to be cleaner and easier to apply without losing any.

This of course, is just my opinion.

Best wishes,

Bill

__________________
Managing Publisher of the Hair Transplant Network, the Hair Loss Learning Center, the Hair Loss Q&A Blog and the Hair Loss Forum and Social Community

View our hair loss articles on EZineArticles.com

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Subscribe to our Newsletters | How We Recommend Physicians

-----

To learn about how I restored my hair, view my my hair loss website.

Remember, true beauty radiates from within, not from the skin.

I am not a medical professional and my words should not be taken as medical advice. All opinions and views shared are my own.

Sorry to disagree but as per the clinical trials, minoxidil liquid is clearly superior to the foam. Anecdotal evidence supports this also. Too bad, the foam is so convenient!

The liquid usually ended up running down my neck, since my hair WAS so thin it couldn't stop it. I'm not sure, but the foam is a lot more convenient for sure. I remember one of the docs on the "live chat" one night a few months back said the foam was superior for other reasons.

__________________
100? 'mini' grapfts by Latham's Hair Clinic - 1991 (Removed 50 plugs by Cooley 3/08.)
2750 FU 3/20/08 by Dr. Cooley

My Hair Loss Website - Hair Transplant with Dr. Cooley

Current regimen:
1.66 mg Proscar M-W-F
Rogaine 5% Foam - every now and then
AndroGel - once daily
Lipitor - 5 mg every other day
Weightlifting - 2x per week
Jogging - 3x per week

That seem to be a common misconception. Many doctors are really in the dark when it comes to the pharmacological aspects of hair growth. They assume that since Rogaine Foam is newer it is also better, not true in this case.

John--
Can you post a link to the studies that show the liquid is better?

Thanks...

I am also interested in these studies as john stated... Where are you john?!!!

This is the 5% Rogaine Foam study abstract submitted to the FDA for its approval.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-
Controlled Double-Blind Clinical Trial of a
Novel Formulation of 5% Topical Minoxidil
Foam vs. Placebo in the Treatment of
Androgenetic Alopecia in Men

Olsen, Elise;1 Funicella, Toni;2 Roberts, Janet;3 Kempers, Steven;4
Piacquadio, Dan;5 Wanser, Rita;6 Zhang, Paul;6 Kohut, Bruce;6
1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, Northe
CArolina, USA; 2. DermResearch, Inc., Austin, TX, USA;
3. Northwest Cutaneous Research Specialists, Portland, OR,
USA; 4. Minnesota Clinical Study Center, Fridley, MN, USA;
5. Therapeutics, Inc., Lajolla, CA, USA; 6. McNeil Consumer
Healthcare, Morris Plains, NJ, USA

Although 5% topical minoxidil solution is safe and effective,
a vehicle that does not contain propylene glycol and is more
aesthetically pleasing to the consumer, would be a distinct
advantage to consumers for use in androgenetic alopecia
(AGA).
Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of 5% topical
minoxidil when formulated in a new foam vehicle (TMF)
for men with AGA.
Method: Two-phase study:
"?? Sixteen week double-blind placebo-controlled phase
to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the 5% TMF.
This phase was conducted on 352 men ages 20-49 with
patterns IIIv, IV or V Hamilton Norwood with the primary
efficacy endpoints of change between Baseline and Week
16 target area hair counts (TAHC) and Week 16 subject
assessment of change in hair loss condition from Baseline.

"?? Open-label extension phase to collect 52 weeks of
safety data with 5% TMF. One hundred forty-three
subjects continued on this phase of the study. Safety
was monitored by taking intercurrent history, vital signs
and scalp irritation assessment by both investigator
and subject.

Results:
"?? Statistically significant increase at Week 16 compared to
Baseline in TAHC with the 5% TMF group (170.8 to 190.8
hairs) compared to placebo (168.9 to 174.4) (p<0.0001).

"?? Statistically significant subjective assessment of hair loss
condition (p<0.0001) on 5% TMF (70.6% noted increased
hair growth, including 47.8% moderate or marked hair
growth) compared to placebo (42.4% noted increased
hair growth, including 21.5% moderate or marked hair
growth).


"?? No significant safety concerns were raised and the 5%
TMF was well tolerated over a one year use period.
Conclusions: The 5% topical minoxidil product, formulated
without propylene glycol and in a foam vehicle, is a safe and
effective treatment for men with AGA.

Only 20 hairs grew in 16 weeks...

"Statistically significant increase at Week 16 compared to
Baseline in TAHC with the 5% TMF group (170.8 to 190.8
hairs) compared to placebo (168.9 to 174.4) (p<0.0001)"


Due to the fact that all the 5% minoxidil studies were evaluate beyond a 16 week trial, and it would be unfair to use them as comparison, I have submitted a sample 2-3% minoxidil liquid trial using the same 16 week time period...

Use of topical minoxidil in the treatment of male pattern baldness.
Savin RC.

This 12-month, double-blind, randomized study evaluated the safety and efficacy of topical minoxidil in the treatment of male pattern baldness. Three formulations were compared: 2% minoxidil solution, 3% minoxidil solution, and placebo. After 4 months all placebo patients crossed over to treatment with the 3% solution. Of the 96 patients randomized into the study, 79 were evaluable at month 12; 25 of these were in the 2% minoxidil group, 24 were in the 3% minoxidil group, and 29 were in the placebo-to-3% solution switchover group. At monthly intervals a hair count was obtained within a 1-inch diameter area on the scalp vertex. In addition, a gross visual estimate of the degree of new hair growth over the entire balding area was made independently by the investigator and the patient. At the end of 4 months there was significant regrowth of nonvellus (terminal and indeterminate) hairs in the patients using the 2% and 3% solutions (p = 0.0001). The mean nonvellus hair count at month 4 was 162.8 in the 2% minoxidil group, 155.4 in the 3% minoxidil group, and 107.1 in the placebo group. The mean increase in the 2% and 3% treatment groups was 58.2 and 48.8, respectively, whereas the mean increase in the placebo group was 4.0. Total hair counts at month 4 demonstrated significantly more growth of hair in the 2% minoxidil group than in the placebo group (p = 0.013), with no significant difference between the 3% minoxidil group and the other two treatment groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Bottom line..... 2-3% minoxidil liquid grew 48.8 to 58.2 hairs as opposed to 5% minoxidil foam's 20 hairs, that amounts of 2.5-3.0 times as much hairs, clearly the superior of the two.

Please also note the in head to head trials, 5% minoxidil was clearly superior to 2-3% minxoidil at all data points.

John---
Thanks... but this is super confusing. According to the foam study, there was a 40% placebo effect. That's pretty crazy.
Also, if the liquid is that much more effective, I can't believe we haven't heard this before. I switched over about a year and a half ago, thinking the foam was more effective. Now I'm quite upset that I switched...
I'd love to hear from others about this topic...especially doctors...

With all due respect, John, unless I am missing something (a possiblity), your data is not straight across comparable. The first study evaluates the foam. The second study evaluates the liquid at various strenghts.

The studies are not comparable AT LEAST because the first study (TMF) does NOT specify a 1 inch diameter area on the scalp for the TAHC, whereas the second study clearly does. If the TAHC areas were not directly comparable across studies, and it is unlikely that they would be, since the studies were NOT made for comparison with one another, than you CANNOT use the TAHC as a basis for comparison between the studies. That is undisputable fact.

Additonally, the first study indicates it was carried out on men of Norwood III, IIIv, or V. The second study is silent as to the subjects MPB patters.

What would be useful is a study evaluating the foam versus the liquid, carried out under EQUALLY CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES (i.e. patients in similar control conditions, etc.).

Bottom line - Comparing two different studies with different control circumstances is a fruitless and meaningless endeavor.

Stimpy