Hello Doctor Rassman,
Does spironolactone cause more hair loss? I seen a lot of people on the internet that claims propecia make their hair worse and others says that this is reflex hyperandrogeincity and their argument was “when DHT lessened testosterone increased alot and cause more hair loss!” but what about Sprio? I heard it decreased testosterone itself and also block androgen receptor, so how it could cause more hair loss?

I’ve always said the Internet is a great source for information, but not everything you read on the web is factual and true. If you want to treat your hair loss with a medication, you need to speak with a doctor. Anecdotal statements or claims found online will mostly mislead or confuse people.

Spironolactone does have theoretical anti-androgen factors, but clinically I have not seen or found credible evidence that it helps with androgenic alopecia. But I do understand that there are patients and doctors who use it as a treatment option. I do not.

Propecia (finasteride) does treat androgenic alopecia. It is not meant to cause hair loss. It is meant to grow hair. I understand there may be controversy on the Internet of Propecia’s side effects and some patients have strong feelings regarding those side effects. My opinion is that each and every individual talk with their doctor and discuss the side effects and understand the risks and benefits. In my practice, many patients use Propecia… and have been using it for over 10 years with no issues.

We can all sit on our ivory tower and debate the biochemical relevance of drugs and mechanisms, but in the end the results (hair growth) is what matters.

This post is in reference to an increased prostate cancer risk from finasteride and dutasteride (see here).

E. Antonio Mangubat, MD wrote an interesting metaphor to help some of his patients and colleagues understand the many discussions on cancer risks in association with taking finasteride. He writes:

“It is sad that the number of lives saved [who have not developed prostate cancer] has been discounted because of the words used …. [in the opinions drawn].

In my opinion their conclusion [New England Journal of Medicine] is like saying seat belts should not be used because it increases the chances of dying if the car ignites on fire. While the caution is true, the conclusion ignores the lives saved if the car does not incinerate.”

We both agree that the conclusions in this NEJM article introduce a fear factor that people with hair loss will now have to consider cancer risks and even death from prostate cancer if they choose to take this drug. The study that is referenced was performed on 20,000+ men over 55 years old in a classic double blind methodology and it showed that the cancer risk was reduced by 25% for those men who took the drug when compared to the control group.

The fear was generated from the observations that there was a higher risk of high grade tumors in those men who took the drug, but there was no study of death rates on the men with higher grade tumors despite the high numbers of men studied. For those readers who are still confused, the pathologists who reviewed the ‘slides’ of the tumors felt that the tumors looked ‘meaner’ (my words), but if these meaner tumors did not kill the men who had that diagnosis made, then it seems almost meaningless, an exercise of intellectualization.

I am angry about these conclusions to two reasons: (1) I must notify patients of these recommendations since they come from the FDA and the NEJM journal, because this has now become the standard of care, and (2) patients who are balding and could be helped with a simple daily finasteride pill may be frightened into the hair transplant surgery route. Yes, I would make money from the transplant, but I prefer that patients simply take a pill rather than have surgery that could perhaps otherwise be avoided.