Dr Farjo Discusses the ICX-TRC Cell Therapy Clinical Trial
The following post is by UK-based physician Dr. Bessam Farjo:
 Written by:  Dr Bessam Farjo United Kingdom |
I’m often asked about the ICX-TRC Cell Therapy Human Clinical Trial and whether or not it was successful. For those of you who don’t know, the trial was (in very simple terms) the development of a therapy whereby cells are sourced from an individual, multiplied, and then returned to that same individual. Take a look at the Farjo website for a more detailed account.
For anyone who has experienced any form of hair loss, the idea that your own existing hair follicles can be multiplied and re-implanted is a huge breakthrough.
Initial results were very encouraging, with an excellent percentage success rate seen within the test areas of the trial subjects.
Unfortunately, whilst the ICX-TRC trial results appeared positive, another unrelated Intercytex project was having less success. As a result of this and Intercytex being listed on the stock market (to make a long story short) the project’s funding was cut, putting an end to the activity – for the time being. The global credit crunch exacerbated matters further.
In 2010, the different divisions of the company were broken down and sold off to different interested parties. The ICX-TRC trial was acquired by Aderans Research (ARI) in the USA, who are continuing to do trials on this subject.
Cell therapy is still an exciting and promising area for the future; however it has proved to be a complicated study that still holds lots of unanswered questions. We’re still very much committed to the concept as well as other exciting areas, and hope to have the opportunity to discover the answers to some of these questions soon – watch this space!
—
Learn more about the author of this article, Dr. Bessam Farjo, on his BaldingBlog profile or at his website.
Dr. Farjo, this post goes in direct contradiction to a previous post of yours wherein you stated that the Phase II trials were disappointing and did not meet expectations. Seems you left that aspect out this time around. Please explain.
This is what you said last October:
Back in 2007 and early 2008, Intercytex genuinely believed that good news was around the corner. This was based on the very promising results of the laboratory work. What happened was that the positive results of clinical trials were not as efficient as the lab ones. In other words although promising and exciting, not quite good enough to justify applying for a therapeutic product for the public.