Scientists in Taipei have reported measurable increases in hair density and thickness after 56 days of daily application of a plant-based compound containing extracellular vesicles from Centella asiatica, FGF-7, IGF-1, caffeine, and panthenol.
The study, published in the journal Cosmetics, involved 60 healthy adults aged 18 to 60, split into two groups: one using the active formulation and the other a placebo. While the results present promise, researchers emphasize significant limitations, including the absence of participants with advanced androgenetic alopecia, the short duration relative to the hair growth cycle, and the fact that the research was funded by the company developing the product.
Independent experts caution that the findings, though encouraging, cannot yet be generalized to broader populations or compared to established treatments like minoxidil. The scientific community awaits larger, longer-term, and independently validated trials before drawing firm conclusions about the compound’s real-world effectiveness.
No direct comparison was made with FDA-approved therapies, leaving open questions about how the new compound stacks up against current standards in efficacy, safety, and long-term use.
For more on this story, see Plant-Based Serum Boosts Hair Density by 25% in 8 Weeks.
The use of plant-derived extracellular vesicles represents a novel approach in hair loss research, aiming to enhance delivery of active ingredients while reducing scalp irritation — a mechanism that, if validated, could influence future formulation strategies across dermatological products.
Was the study conducted on people with advanced hair loss?
No, the participants had mild to moderate hair thinning, not full baldness, and their hair follicles were still active.
How long did the study last, and why is that significant?
The trial ran for 56 days — less than two months — which researchers say is too short to fully assess the hair growth cycle or long-term effectiveness.
Who funded the research, and does that affect its credibility?
The study was funded by the company that developed the product, prompting calls for independent verification by unaffiliated research groups.
How does this compare to existing treatments like minoxidil?
The study did not include comparisons with established therapies such as minoxidil, so no conclusions can be drawn about relative efficacy or superiority.