Talk:Minoxidil

In need of depth
I second the prior call for additional information on its use as an antihypertensive. It's a third-line agent, but in refractory patients it is commonly considered. My particular interest is in knowing the incidence of pericardial effusions with minoxidil use. All the research appears to have been done in the late 70s and early 80s, and I'm having troubble accessing it. -- PCAndrew

"Cure" for hair loss?
Maybe someone asked this, but according to the line "known for its ability to slow or stop hair loss and promote hair regrowth" in the first paragraph, this implies a cure. So, is it? --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Insofar as cessation of use of minoxidil will cause hair loss to resume, it's not a cure. Treatment has to be maintained permanently for the effects to be maintained. Martin Blank (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

hair growth
the current entry says that it is unknown how minoxidil stimulates hair growth, but i don't believe that is accurate. my understanding is that it dialates blood vessels, increasing blood flow to the area. (that's why it was originally thought of as a heart attack/blood pressure medicine, because it would dialate blood vessels, increasing blood flow)

yes and...it's exat mechanism of action is not...known.

ok, well we're kind of splitting hairs -- The article says "It is unknown how the drug stimulates hair growth." Known is that it stimulates hair growth by dialating blood vessels which increases blood flow to the area. What is unknown is exactly how it dialates blood vessels.


 * I think it's the other way round; it's known for its vasodilatory properties but it's unknown exactly how this vasodilation promotes hair growth. In fact, one could speculate that the promotion of hair growth could be as a result of a mechanism other than vasodilation (I have no scientific evidence for this - I'm just highlighting where the gap in the knowledge is). 78.144.78.170 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

it opens atp sensitive k+ channels causing hyperpolarisation which opens ca2+ channels and this causes vasodilation and falling TPR

It apparently directly opens ATP sensitive potassium channels and it is not through the cGMP-PKG pathway as the article hints. The Potassium hypothesis is supported by other potassium channel agonist ( pinacidil) increasing hair growth, so the effect may not be vascular but directly on the dermal papillae. GetAgrippa 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be helpful if the article gave some indication of the drug's efficacy. What percentage of users experience hair growth, or cessation of hair loss?

Mechanism of hair loss treatment
Note that minoxidil's vasodilatory effect does not explain its ability to thicken hair. Other vasodilators have no effect on the hair.

Also - some in the hairloss community have started to use oral minoxidil tablets in an attempt to grow hair, although this is regarded as risky.

For citations, see for example: http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=39415&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=

Or search for "loniten" on any hairloss forum.

81.179.103.232 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Loniten
This article really needs balance, as the drug was not originally for hair growth. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. This drug was -- and still is -- used for control of hypertension, and as such I prescribe it often in my work as a physician. Sadly this article barely talks about it.  59.125.23.30 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference No. 6 contains a dead URL
Currently links to "http://www.showcatsonline.com/x/minoxidil.htm" (404)

Should link to "http://www.showcatsonline.com/x/minoxidil.shtml"

Alsavage (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * , thank you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Feline toxicity
Just HOW toxic to cats is it? Obviously, you can't exactly go around spraying them with it... But is playing with or sharing a pillow with a minoxidil user dangerous to cats??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've used it for about two years and my cat seems okay. The toxicity was discovered because ridiculous people actually used it ON show cats. Cats cannot metabolize minoxidil and it kills them, and I think the amount needed to become toxic is still unknown; on the other hand I think we would be able to turn up more information on the subject if it were EASY to kill cats with minoxidil accidentally.--98.216.50.36 (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Minoxidil has anything to do with Amenixil? It's referenced on de: Cogiati (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

commercial
Isn't the picture of the regain a commercial, they invented the medicine but they are not the only producer.And this picture contribute anything to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.211.57 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Collagen Depletion and effects on face of the topical Minoxidil
Are there any studies that cover this topic? The link goes to a study which proves that minoxidil depletes collagen when applied in vitro for subconjunctival fibroblasts of Rabbits. Are there any studies regarding topical application and the documentation of this side effect? Scientifically I'm interested and personally I'm concerned :)

Dose0017 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Guinter Kahn
I am surprised this article makes no mention of one of this drug's inventors, Guinter Kahn. See this New York Times article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

hair loss
you keep wanting to add content about hair loss but I have not found that in any source. You cited http://www.drugs.com/pro/minoxidil.html - would you please quote the part of that article where exacerbated hair loss is discussed? Please discuss. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've requested semi-protection. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, the first reference was indeed wrong, earlier today. I have instead inserted the correct reference for hair loss - just search the reference http://www.drugs.com/sfx/rogaine-side-effects.html for "exacerbate", you will find it easily. A Chemist--81.131.172.95 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * you are an edit-warring ass. terrible behavior.  Thank you for finally talking and for providing a real source. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I made one (!) mistake. That does not deserve your foul language. And a good evening to you, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.95 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Side effects?
I don't see any discussion of side effects. I have yet to see *any* drug whichis actually effective which has *no* side effects, and the absence makes it look like nothing more than an ad. Critterkeeper (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Minoxidil.... ? Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Off-label use for beard growth
The internet is full of attempts and reports about applying Minoxidil to trigger or improve beard growth in adult men. I myself have used it successfully that way. Would be interesting to find a source and add this. 2A02:8070:27B9:8BF0:29CB:2F8A:E1E2:5F10 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an inappropriate medication use, not approved by FDA for this use. Minoxidil is a medication, not a cosmetic product. In certain cases, this topical medication may cause some serious side effect.Citrus dorian (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"See also" section deletion
It puzzles me why user Whywhenwhohow would completely delete the "See also" section in this article. According to WP:MEDMOS, the "See also" entries are relevant here, specially if they have no wikilinks in the main article or in navigation templates. I understand that user Whywhenwhohow quotes "Avoid the See also section when possible". However, a "See also" section here is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web, enabling readers to explore tangentially related topics (according to MOS:SEEALSO), where the corresponding wikilinks don't quite "fit", or need to be included within the text of the article. The "See also" section here enriches the whole article. What does Whywhenwhohow has to loose by preserving the "See also" section? I see the advantages mentioned above far surpass the disadvantage. I suggest preserving the "See also" section here, or perhaps editing its contents, if something in it can be mentioned within the text of the article instead. Thank you. 73.119.19.79 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Low dose oral treatment
Please get consensus before adding the text to the article. It doesn't meet the requirements for a reliable source for medical information. The information is based on a primary source and also a non-medical source. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "It doesn't meet the requirements for a reliable source for medical information". Actually, I think it does...for the following reasons:
 * 1. Reference 1. The New York Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/health/minoxidil-hair-loss-pills.html, specifically mentions that "Dermatologists who specialize in hair loss say that the key ingredient in a topical treatment worked even better when taken orally at a low dose". The article quoted four leading dermatologists by name and hospital in the article.
 * 2. Reference 2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29231239/. Dr. Sinclair's article was published in the peer-reviewed, International Journal of Dermatology
 * 3. Reference 3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33639244/. Also published in the peer-reviewed, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
 * I don't quite understand where I am supposed to "get consensus" from; I think the sub-section stands on its own merits. Please restore it at your earlier convenience. If I don't hear back from you in 48 hours, I will do so myself. Rudolf.Fernandes (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * MEDRS-compliant sources are required for biomedical information in Wikipedia. The New York Times and primary sources are not compliant. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. The added text seems to provide undue weight (WP:UNDUE) for Rodney Sinclair. Is there a conflict of interest (WP:COI)? You can ask others interested in WikiProject Medicine to weigh in at WT:MED. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. No, there's no conflict of interest. The NYT article just piqued my interest.
 * 2. You say, "The added text seems to provide undue weight (WP:UNDUE) for Rodney Sinclair". well, my take is that it should... given that he discovered the treatment! For example, Röntgen is mentioned in the article on Radiography.
 * 2. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the NYT article is not Wikipedia-complaint. The NYT does carry out fact-checking and the article has quoted four leading dermatologists by name and hospital. In other words, these people have actually spoken to the NYT reporter! Surely, that's significant.
 * 3. I don't think Reference 2 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29231239/) is a primary source. It's not taken from Dr. Sinclair's website; rather, it is an article he published in a peer-reviewed journal which, by definition, suggests that it has been viewed and accepted by other luminaries in the hair growth business.
 * 4. Reference 3 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33639244/) is certainly a secondary or tertiary source. It is a study of the risk of using low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM), but that just indirectly substantiates LDOM's use for the treatment of hair loss.
 * Finally, I believe this is important information for a person who's recently become aware of Minoxidil for hair loss (and reaches the Wikipedia web page).
 * If you can't agree with the above, please don't remove the entry. Instead, I ask you to get a second opinion. Rudolf.Fernandes (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rudolf.Fernandes medical articles on Wikipedia must adhere to a higher sourcing standard as described in WP:MEDRS. So @Whywhenwhohow is correct on this one. You need a medical review for this kind of claims. I've added this one to the article: . Let me know what you think. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Very nice, although I think it should be moved into the "Hair Growth" section to afford higher visibility to the person who reaches Wikipedia's minoxidil article with hair loss on their mind. See the following small selection of articles that suggest Wikipedia is currently behind the curve:
 * https://www.aad.org/dw/dw-insights-and-inquiries/archive/2022/low-dose-oral-minoxidil-alopecia
 * https://www.dermatologytimes.com/view/low-dose-oral-minoxidil-for-hair-growth
 * https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/982317
 * What do you think? Rudolf.Fernandes (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The research section is a bit problematic.
 * From When using low-dose minoxidil, it is important to let patients know that it is off label, but several published studies have shown safety and efficacy,”. This is definitely still in the "research" phase.
 * Should we move it to the hair loss section but clearly label it as a research area? I'm not sure. I don't know if we have a guideline for this. @Whywhenwhohow maybe knows? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears that your text about the study was copied from the conclusion in the abstract. Please see WP:NOABSTRACT and WP:COPY. The information about the low dose oral use belongs in the research section instead of the history section. See WP:PHARMMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Whywhenwhohow. I have no idea how you have concluded that I've "copied from the conclusion". Please review the edits I've made. Also, I'm somewhat indifferent to where "low dose" is placed -- "History" or "Research"; however, I'm convinced that it belongs as a sub-section to "Hair Growth" as this is where it makes most sense to a hair-challenged reader. Maybe "Hair Growth" can be split, leaving part in "History", the rest forming a new section titled "Hair Growth". Rudolf.Fernandes (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

... an effective and well-tolerated treatment alternative for healthy patients having difficulty with topical formulations and the abstract conclusion states ... an effective and well-tolerated treatment alternative for healthy patients having difficulty with topical formulations. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your text states
 * Whywhenwhohow. Nope, I did not write this text, although I did move it, as is, from the "Research" section into "History"->"Hair Growth". Feel free to add quotation marks to it. Or, maybe, the original writer, User:Gtoffoletto (?), could do that. Rudolf.Fernandes (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my summary of the study. I didn't blindly take the abstract. However I did try to stick as closely as possible to the conclusions of the review in order to not misrepresent it. If part of that text is "too close for comfort" to the original we can simplify it a bit to avoid WP:COPY issues.
 * According to WP:PHARMMOS I think this should go in the medical uses section:
 * - Medical uses: This section should go into further detail regarding what the medication is used for (for each major indication). Take special care with regulatory terms; since drug approvals vary from country to country, so does the distinction between approved and off-label uses.
 * - Research: Ongoing investigations into a medication that have not reached clinical usage
 * @Whywhenwhohow agree? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the sources don't meet WP:MEDRS, the information should not be in the Medical uses section. The Research section seems appropriate until proper sources are available. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already added a review which meets WP:MEDRS. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding note on clinical trail for ovarian cancer
This is a phase II trial to determine the drug's effectiveness.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05272462

Quoting: "Laboratory results provide promising evidence that minoxidil could be used for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer." Scanon7 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

reserved for use?
"...is generally reserved for use in severe hypertension patients who do not respond to at least two agents and a diuretic. [ref. 13]" I couldn't find this in ref. 13 70.55.197.56 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)