Evaluation of efficacy of intradermal injection therapy vs derma roller application for administration of QR678 Neo® hair regrowth formulation for the treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia—A prospective study. (6th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shome, Debraj; Kapoor, Rinky; Vadera, Sapna; Doshi, Komal; Patel, Ghanshyam; Mohammad Khan, Temoor
• Is Part Of: Journal of cosmetic dermatology. Volume 20:Number 10(2021)
• Page Start: 3299
• Page End: 3307
• Publication Date: 2021-05-06
• Subjects: androgenetic alopecia -- derma roller -- hair regrowth therapy -- intradermal application -- QR678 Neo; Skin -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Lasers in surgery -- Periodicals; Skin -- Pathophysiology -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 616.5
• DOI: 10.1111/jocd.14139
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-2130

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Non‐surgical hair restoration is one of the most exciting and innovative fields in cosmetic surgery today. The addition of latest technique like derma roller seeks to achieve better results for delivering pharmaceutical solution for hair growth in comparison with topical administration. Aim: We aim to compare intradermal injection vs. derma roller technique for administration of QR678Neo ® hair regrowth therapy for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) in male and female patients. Method: A sum of 50 patients in the age range of 20–70 years with AGA were included and divided into 2 groups; Group A (intradermal) and Group B (derma roller). Intradermal injection of QR678Neo ® formulation and derma roller with superficial application of QR678Neo ® was given in each group. Assessment was done using hair pull test, global photographic assessment, video‐microscopic assessment, and patient subjective assessment at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Results: Significant diminution in hair fall was seen in both the groups. All the video‐microscopic assessment factors were better in intradermal injection group compared to the derma roller group, but not significant. Erythema and pain were high in derma roller group in compare to intradermal. Conclusion: Derma roller technique is more convenient and easy to perform, especially when the availability of a trained person to carry out intradermal injection is not feasible, it gives satisfactory results. It is also beneficial in needle phobic and apprehensive patients. Though the results are more efficacious with intradermal scalp injection technique, this study established satisfactory results with derma roller technique as well.