Guide compound for eyelash growth (1 Viewer)

(studies are just copy-pasted)

Study 1 — U.S. Phase 3 Pivotal Trial

Source: Allergan/Latisse Phase 3 RCT · N=278 adults · 16 weeks · double-blind, placebo-controlled

PubMed PMID: 21899919 · ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00693420

Primary endpoint — GEA (Global Eyelash Assessment):

≥1-point improvement on the GEA scale — 78.1% (bimatoprost) vs. 18.4% (placebo) at Week 16 (P<0.0001).

Secondary endpoints—DIA (Digital Image Analysis):

By week 16, bimatoprost resulted in a mean increase in eyelash length of +25% versus +2% for placebo, a mean increase in thickness of +106% versus +12%, and a mean increase in darkness of +18%.

Absolute length values (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00693420):

By week 20 (post-treatment), the mean increase in length was +1.47 mm (bimatoprost, n=137) versus +0.06 mm (placebo, n=141).

Temporal dynamics:

Eyelash length increased statistically significantly starting at week 4; thickness and darkening—starting at week 8.



Study 2 — Post-chemotherapy, 12 months

Source: Wirta et al. · PubMed PMID: 26060513 · absolute value data from Allergan’s patent dossier (USPTO 8758733)

Length (absolute values):

Baseline length: 4.86 mm → increase of +1.99 mm by the 6th month. Mean percentage increase: +48.08% (6 months) and +49.88% (12 months); median increase: +37.84% (6 months) and +39.08% (12 months).

Thickness (absolute values):

Baseline thickness: 0.39 mm² → increase of +0.83 mm² by month 6.

Responder rate:

Responder rate: 46.9% (bimatoprost) versus 18.2% (placebo) at 6 months (P=0.004); at 12 months—61.5% among those who continued bimatoprost.



Study 3 — Japanese cohorts (idiopathic + post-chemotherapy)

Source: Springer Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · PMC4003339 · two parallel groups, N=173 (idiopathic) + N=36 (post-chemotherapy)

Idiopathic (Study 1):

Mean increase by the 4th month: length +1.62 mm (+24%), thickness +0.35 mm² (+44.8%), pigmentation -12.02 IU (8% darker).

Post-chemotherapy (Study 2):

Significant between-group differences by month 4: length +2.65 mm (bimatoprost) vs. +0.99 mm (placebo) (P=0.003); thickness +0.76 mm² vs. +0.28 mm² (P=0.007).

GEA:

GEA score ≥1: 77.3% vs. 17.6% (idiopathic, P<0.001) and 88.9% vs. 27.8% (post-chemotherapy, P<0.001).



Study 4 — Japanese cohort, DIA data on length and thickness

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01391273 · n=88 bimatoprost / n=85 placebo

Baseline length: 6.92±0.81 mm (bimatoprost) and 7.00±0.83 mm (placebo). By month 4: increase of +1.62±1.11 mm vs. -0.04±0.36 mm.

Baseline thickness: 0.98 ± 0.32 mm² (bimatoprost) and 1.01 ± 0.33 mm² (placebo). By the 4th month: increase of +0.35 ± 0.31 mm² vs. -0.03 ± 0.20 mm².

 

[spider]

Water

 

[John Doe]

Water

water

 

[Idec]

Bimatoprost, used for glaucoma (e.g., Lumigan) or eyelash growth (e.g., Latisse), commonly causes eye redness, itching, dryness, burning, and darkened eyelid skin. It may also cause permanent darkening of the iris and loss of periorbital fat, leading to sunken-looking eyes or deeper eyelid creases.

 

[Idec]

Also unless you have cancer, I have no idea why you put chemo studies

 

[Skull]

(studies are just copy-pasted)

Study 1 — U.S. Phase 3 Pivotal Trial

Source: Allergan/Latisse Phase 3 RCT · N=278 adults · 16 weeks · double-blind, placebo-controlled

PubMed PMID: 21899919 · ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00693420

Primary endpoint — GEA (Global Eyelash Assessment):

≥1-point improvement on the GEA scale — 78.1% (bimatoprost) vs. 18.4% (placebo) at Week 16 (P<0.0001).

Secondary endpoints—DIA (Digital Image Analysis):

By week 16, bimatoprost resulted in a mean increase in eyelash length of +25% versus +2% for placebo, a mean increase in thickness of +106% versus +12%, and a mean increase in darkness of +18%.

Absolute length values (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00693420):

By week 20 (post-treatment), the mean increase in length was +1.47 mm (bimatoprost, n=137) versus +0.06 mm (placebo, n=141).

Temporal dynamics:

Eyelash length increased statistically significantly starting at week 4; thickness and darkening—starting at week 8.



Study 2 — Post-chemotherapy, 12 months

Source: Wirta et al. · PubMed PMID: 26060513 · absolute value data from Allergan’s patent dossier (USPTO 8758733)

Length (absolute values):

Baseline length: 4.86 mm → increase of +1.99 mm by the 6th month. Mean percentage increase: +48.08% (6 months) and +49.88% (12 months); median increase: +37.84% (6 months) and +39.08% (12 months).

Thickness (absolute values):

Baseline thickness: 0.39 mm² → increase of +0.83 mm² by month 6.

Responder rate:

Responder rate: 46.9% (bimatoprost) versus 18.2% (placebo) at 6 months (P=0.004); at 12 months—61.5% among those who continued bimatoprost.



Study 3 — Japanese cohorts (idiopathic + post-chemotherapy)

Source: Springer Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · PMC4003339 · two parallel groups, N=173 (idiopathic) + N=36 (post-chemotherapy)

Idiopathic (Study 1):

Mean increase by the 4th month: length +1.62 mm (+24%), thickness +0.35 mm² (+44.8%), pigmentation -12.02 IU (8% darker).

Post-chemotherapy (Study 2):

Significant between-group differences by month 4: length +2.65 mm (bimatoprost) vs. +0.99 mm (placebo) (P=0.003); thickness +0.76 mm² vs. +0.28 mm² (P=0.007).

GEA:

GEA score ≥1: 77.3% vs. 17.6% (idiopathic, P<0.001) and 88.9% vs. 27.8% (post-chemotherapy, P<0.001).



Study 4 — Japanese cohort, DIA data on length and thickness

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01391273 · n=88 bimatoprost / n=85 placebo

Baseline length: 6.92±0.81 mm (bimatoprost) and 7.00±0.83 mm (placebo). By month 4: increase of +1.62±1.11 mm vs. -0.04±0.36 mm.

Baseline thickness: 0.98 ± 0.32 mm² (bimatoprost) and 1.01 ± 0.33 mm² (placebo). By the 4th month: increase of +0.35 ± 0.31 mm² vs. -0.03 ± 0.20 mm².

Roblox John Doe, please dont hack me!

 

[tmpll]

 

[John Doe]

Also unless you have cancer, I have no idea why you put chemo studies

is it better to say "use bimatoprost, bimatoprost good" or give actual numbers on how much does it make your eyelashes grow? retarded answer "why do you actual numbers when you can say <compound> good"

 

[Idec]

is it better to say "use bimatoprost, bimatoprost good" or give actual numbers on how much does it make your eyelashes grow? retarded answer "why do you actual numbers when you can say <compound> good"

Thats just not what I said, but if you believe cohorts are accurate then you dont know how to read studies.

 

[John Doe]

Thats just not what I said, but if you believe cohorts are accurate then you dont know how to read studies.

there is nothing said from myself in the thread, studies are copy-pasted from the sources of the studies, i didnt make a single statement, if you think doctors that did these studies are wrong, and you did more studies than them, or your studies disprove their, present it

 

[tmpll]

is it better to say "use bimatoprost, bimatoprost good" or give actual numbers on how much does it make your eyelashes grow? retarded answer "why do you actual numbers when you can say <compound> good"

to write a real guide you should explain how it works, what it does, etc.

you put 0 effort into this

 

[Idec]

there is nothing said from myself in the thread, studies are copy-pasted from the sources of the studies, i didnt make a single statement, if you think doctors that did these studies are wrong, and you did more studies than them, or your studies disprove their, present it

well you didnt even put the methodology of how they know the eyelashes grew, was it by word of mouth? a survey? did they measure them before and after?

also if this thread IS about compunds for eyelash growth then pointing out the bad aspects of one of them is needed. also again why is chemo studies in here.

 

[John Doe]

to write a real guide you should explain how it works, what it does, etc.

you put 0 effort into this

no shittings, the first sentence in the topic is that i copy-pasted the studies, if im making a thread about a compound being able to do something with <feature>, im not going to talk about how it is good as pesticide for example, because it's unrelevant, the thread is supposed to give the name of the compound and it's main purpose, so you can research about it more, about topics you want to know more

 

[tmpll]

no shittings, the first sentence in the topic is that i copy-pasted the studies, if im making a thread about a compound being able to do something with <feature>, im not going to talk about how it is good as pesticide for example, because it's unrelevant, the thread is supposed to give the name of the compound and it's main purpose, so you can research about it more, about topics you want to know more

dnr retard

 

[Idec]

dnr retard

no shittings

 

[tmpll]

no shittings

fucking dalits invading the forum

 

[John Doe]

well you didnt even put the methodology of how they know the eyelashes grew, was it by word of mouth? a survey? did they measure them before and after?

also if this thread IS about compunds for eyelash growth then pointing out the bad aspects of one of them is needed. also again why is chemo studies in here.

do you expect a topic having label "guide" absolutely spoonfeeding you information? there's links to the studies for you to read what you want to read, whats the point of entering the WHOLE study if there's a PMC itself for that????????????????????????

 

[Idec]

do you expect a topic having label "guide" absolutely spoonfeeding you information? there's links to the studies for you to read what you want to read, whats the point of entering the WHOLE study if there's a PMC itself for that????????????????????????

Then you are just shit at making guides, guides are teaching, and if you can teach people in a concise manor with all the relevant information for any questions that might arise then you are a good teacher. You are just shit.

 

[John Doe]

Then you are just shit at making guides, guides are teaching, and if you cant teach people in a concise manor with all the relevant information for any questions that might arise then you are a good teacher. You are just shit.

if you're trying to talk about "teacher" guess who's one of the best? Socrates, guess what he did? didn't fucking spoonfed his students and made THEM think, "oooohhhh saar just give me the compound and say when and how to use" y'all act like genuine drug addicts that just need to know where to pin and how much, i give you the start of your journey to researching about compound, not the conclusion that doesn't make sense if you didn't do the research yourself, giving you the "guide" guide you want me to do, i will just destroy ddunning-kruger effect that is the most important thing to go through, to understand something

 

[tmpll]

if you're trying to talk about "teacher" guess who's one of the best? Socrates, guess what he did? didn't fucking spoonfed his students and made THEM think, "oooohhhh saar just give me the compound and say when and how to use" y'all act like genuine drug addicts that just need to know where to pin and how much, i give you the start of your journey to researching about compound, not the conclusion that doesn't make sense if you didn't do the research yourself, giving you the "guide" guide you want me to do, i will just destroy ddunning-kruger effect that is the most important thing to go through, to understand something

this isnt a guide you stinky skindian

 

[Idec]

if you're trying to talk about "teacher" guess who's one of the best? Socrates, guess what he did? didn't fucking spoonfed his students and made THEM think, "oooohhhh saar just give me the compound and say when and how to use" y'all act like genuine drug addicts that just need to know where to pin and how much, i give you the start of your journey to researching about compound, not the conclusion that doesn't make sense if you didn't do the research yourself, giving you the "guide" guide you want me to do, i will just destroy ddunning-kruger effect that is the most important thing to go through, to understand something

all that just to make a false comparison of a philosophy teacher which is very speculative and a biology teacher

 

[John Doe]

all that just to make a false comparison of a philosophy teacher which is very speculative and a biology teacher

and where's the false comparison? i see only the statement that it is, how does me making you think rather than feeding you the information make me a bad "teacher" while i never said that im a teacher, i just made a guide, that guides you to thinking and making research