To date, I have covered two anti-androgens in detail on this blog: namely, Spironolactone and RU58841. Two other anti-androgens, fluridil and flutamide, are also fairly popular in the hair loss world. Due to their similar names, many people confuse the two, so I am writing one post to cover both products. I also do not want to write too many separate posts on anti-androgens, but do want to cover the main ones.
Flutamide (brand name Eulexin) is a synthetic anti-androgen that was first approved by the US FDA in 1989 to treat prostate cancer in men. The drug is sold under numerous brand names. According to the wikipedia entry on Flutamide, the drug has now largely been replaced with newer anti-androgens with fewer side effects. I am not so sure if this is true when it comes to scalp hair regrowth applications since numerous hair loss forum members continue to use flutamide. Moreover, topical application of flutamide via nanoparticles could results in fewer or no side effects.
An interesting study from 2011 where a women with hair loss saw no results when on Spironolactone plus topical Minoxidil, but did see hair regrowth when on Flutamide.
An interesting study comparing Finasteride, Flutamide and Spironolactone for treating hirsutism (all three almost equally effective in reducing body hair modestly).
The chemical name for Fluridil is Topilutamide. Fluridil is currently sold via the brand name Eucapil, a topical product that is manufactured by Czech Republic based company Interpharma that holds patent rights to Fluridil. The company claims that Eucapil is not absorbed systematically and it has thus far not resulted in any side effects. Interpharma was founded in 1932, and became a subsidiary of Japan’s Otsuka Pharmaceutical in 2008. Eucapil is only approved for sale in several European countries, but many people around the world seem to be getting their hands on the product easily.
The one and only study on Pubmed regarding Fluridil is from 2002, and suggests a modest benefit (anagen hair quantity increased from 76 percent to 87 percent) for hair loss sufferers with no major side effects. Also see this one other important paper on Fluridil. Eucapil’s before and after photos of scalp hair when using Fluridil seem decent, but perhaps they are exhibiting a best case scenario.
Fluridil versus Flutamide
Over the years, on all major hair loss forums people have created a number of threads asking whether fluridil or flutamide is better for treating hair loss.
If you do a google search for each product, flutamide has 423,000 results and fluridil has only 15,900 results. Clearly, this is a no contest when it comes to importance (by comparison, Spironolactone has 728,000 results and RU58841 has 78,600 results).
Moreover, if you do a search on Pubmed, flutamide has 3,238 results (although the majority are not related to scalp hair loss issues) and fluridil has only two results (!) with only one of those two being of significance. So based on popularity, it seems like flutamide is the way to go.
It would also seem that because flutamide is so heavily studied per the number of Pubmed results, its side effects are unlikely to result in any major surprises.
However, based on effectiveness, the superiority of flutamide over fluridil is is not clear when reading hair loss forum testimonials.
There are numerous anti-androgens available in the market today. If I were to take one just for scalp hair loss, I would only use a topical one in order to limit side effects. When it comes to effectiveness on scalp hair, do not expect miracles. While it seems like all anti-androgens result in some benefit for scalp hair for most users, regrowing long lost hair is not at all likely.
As far as flutamide versus fluridil, I am not sure which one is more effective, but fluridil seems to be somewhat safer, although flutamide is by no means dangerous from what I have read on the various hair loss forums and studies. It is imperative to consult a doctor prior to trying such drugs, as my opinions and conclusions based on just internet research can easily be incorrect. I am neither a doctor, nor educated or experienced in any kind of medical field.