Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.
DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION
This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more
The reason these two products get compared all the time is because of their similarities for the purpose of use. Both KX and RU are both non‑steroidal topical anti‑androgens that block the androgen receptor at the scalp to prevent dihydrotestosterone. In this guide, I will be going over the two products as individuals and then compare the two at the end. But in short, they, on the outside, seem the same, but differ when you dive deep. (Kinda like @splanky vs @Splankу)
But before we begin make sure to drop your predictions of which is better in the comments below, hit the follow button, and give me a gold rep for +3 reputations.
WHAT IS KX-826? Pyrilutamide (also known as KX-826) is a topical nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) drug developed by Kintor Pharmaceuticals. It was developed as a treatment for androgenic alopecia and acne vulgaris. Pyrilutamide works in a different way than other anti-androgenic drugs, such as finasteride or dutasteride. Instead of inhibiting the enzyme 5α-reductase that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, it competitively binds to the androgen receptor. This stops dihydrotestosterone and testosterone from binding to the receptor and exerting their effects.
STUDIES/CLINICAL TRIALS (DISCLAIMER: The main problem with the results of these studies is the fact that KX has no peer-reviewed studies. Meaning that all the results that were shared came straight from the producers of the product, so they could've filtered out the negatives of the test. But this does not take away from the overall success of the product, as there have been many personal testimonies stating the usefulness of the product backing up the test. And the producers cannot lie about the outcome of the results, so all information given is the trvth.) Study 1 The first study, looking at female androgenic alopecia, was a 24-week, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial conducted in China. 160 female participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups, including 0.25% pyrilutamide applied once daily, 0.25% applied twice daily, 0.5% applied once daily, and 0.5% applied twice daily, or placebo groups (one group for once daily, and one group for twice daily). The primary measured outcome was the change in hair growth, as measured by target area non-vellus hair count (TAHC). Essentially, the researchers were counting the number of thick, pigmented hairs (or ‘terminal’ hairs) in a given area, as opposed to the number of fine, unpigmented (vellus) hairs.
The researchers determined that the recommended dose for their phase III trial in China is 0.5% once daily, as it increased hairs by 11.39 counts per cm2 from baseline, compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the researchers said that efficacy was seen as early as the end of week 12 of treatment. When it came to safety, the researchers mentioned that it was well tolerated, with mild adverse events seen that were similar to the placebo.
Study 2 Another 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-regional study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pyrilutamide in 120 men with androgenic alopecia. For this study, the researchers presented a poster at the 6th National Hair Academic Conference in China, and it has since been translated to English online.
The participants were randomized into four groups:
0.25% pyrilutamide applied twice daily
0.5% pyrilutamide applied once daily
0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily
Placebo (most likely treatment with just the cream or emollient that pyrilutamide is suspended in).
The researchers found that the participants that used 0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily showed improvement in total hair count at the end of the 24 weeks, with an increase of 15.34 hairs per cm2 compared to the placebo-treated groups.
Study 3 A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation phase 1 trial was completed in the US over 24 weeks to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of different concentrations of pyrilutamide. The participants included 40 healthy male patients, 18-60 years old with androgenic alopecia, who were treated with multiple ascending dose applications of 0.3%, 1.2%, 4.8%, and 9.6% pyrilutamide.
The study showed no “severe” adverse drug events, with all adverse events relating to the drug application being mild contact dermatitis that healed in a short time. Unfortunately, the amount of time taken to heal was not given.
Furthermore, the researchers measured the concentration of the drug in the blood to measure the risk of any systemic effects. While we do not have the specific numbers, the researchers do mention that the concentration of pyrilutamide in the blood was low, indicating that the topical concentrations used were not enough to cause a systemic accumulation (i.e., it may not lead to effects around the rest of the body after being topically applied, at these concentrations and frequency).
In this study, you can see the concerns some have about the publication of information. Missing specific numbers and time, while they choose to generalize the information.
Study 4 A subsequent phase 2 study was next conducted in the US, with results announced in May 2023. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group clinical study was conducted in 123 male AGA patients who were classified as stage III vertex, IV, or V using the Hamilton-Norwood scale. 93 patients were randomly assigned to either 0.25% once daily (“QD”), 0.5% QD, and 0.5% twice daily (“BID”) pyrilutamide. 30 patients were randomly assigned to placebo groups for each dose.
According to Kintor, the 0.5% BID KX-826 group hair count increased by around 10 hairs per cm2 compared to the baseline after 24 weeks, which was statistically significant. An improvement was seen over the placebo.
Study 5 (After failing to pass the need requirements for a phase 3 pass, KX finally hit its goals to pass phase 3, here are the results.)
The trial was a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase II/III study with adaptive designs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1% and 0.5% KX-826 for the topical treatment of male adults with AGA in China.
Participants took part in the study for 52 weeks.
TAHC –
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 15.33 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 14.46 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the placebo group showed an increase of 4.68 hairs/cm2 from baseline
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 10.65 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 9.78 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
Personal Takeaways Appliance is very simple, spray the target area and rub it in. That’s all, it is like most topicals in the sense that you have to be consistent with it to see results.
As I stated earlier, the main concern of all these studies is the fact that they are not peer-reviewed. This is important because without peer review information provided by Kintor reflects only what the company has chosen to disclose, raising concerns about potential biases or omitted data.
But regarding the product based on the information we do know; I can say that the 0.5% twice a day is the best approach for use. I have seen that they are selling a 0.9% topical but not only is it more expensive, but it also displays no significant increase in hair/cm and can lead to more side effects and risk. Although the side effects of KX are very low to begin with. Reported side effects remain minimal, consisting mostly of localized skin irritation, which is common with any topical solution containing alcohol or propylene glycol carriers. There is no evidence of the systemic hormonal issues which is one of the main sides of other DHT blockers.
WHAT IS RU-58841? RU58841 is a topical androgen receptor antagonist developed in the mid-1990’s to combat androgenic alopecia by preventing DHT from having its effects. As an androgen receptor antagonist, RU58841 blocks the androgen receptors on cell surfaces for the hormone DHT, preventing DHT from exerting its effects.
STUDIES (Now the MAJOR issue with RU studies is that most of them are on animals (things like rats, hamsters, and @batluvr158). When the topical was originally made in the 90’s, the producers suddenly dropped the product after funding issues leaving many of the test unpublished. What I am going to show are the studies that I could find. There might be more out there.)
Study 1 In an early study using an intact hamster flank-organ model, topical RU58841 showed strong local antiandrogen activity with minimal evidence of systemic spillover at low doses. When applied topically at doses up to 100 µg/animal, RU58841 reduced flank-organ area in a dose-dependent manner while showing no effect on the opposite flank organ, no meaningful change in serum testosterone, and no detectable antiandrogenic effects on sex organs (e.g., prostate/seminal vesicles). These findings supported the premise that RU58841 can act locally within a certain exposure window.
Study 2 In the hamster flank-organ study, when RU58841 was given subcutaneously (to mimic complete systemic exposure), systemic antiandrogen signals emerged at higher doses. At 300 to 1000 µg/animal, researchers observed reductions in prostate weight, indicating that systemic antiandrogenic effects can appear once exposure is high enough.
In intact rats, strong androgen-dependent effects were generally absent up to 1 mg/rat regardless of route of administration but became apparent at 10 mg/rat. Testosterone increases were noted only after subcutaneous dosing at the highest dose. This suggests that endocrine feedback can occur when systemic exposure is sufficiently high.
Study 3 The most hair-relevant preclinical data for RU58841 come from studies conducted in stump-tailed macaques. These primate species can develop an androgenic alopecia-like pattern with age, making it a useful, though still not perfect, translational model.
In these experiments, topical RU58841 was applied to an alopecic scalp and produced concentration-dependent improvements in visible hair parameters. A lower concentration (around 0.5%) did not yield impressive results, while a higher concentration (around 5%) produced the strongest regrowth signal over months of treatment.
Reported benefits included increased hair density and hair length. Beyond surface-level changes, the primate works also reported findings that align with meaningful follicle biology improvements, including support for dermal papilla cell growth and evidence consistent with vellus-to-terminal hair conversion.
One particularly notable mechanistic detail from the macaque work is that RU58841 appeared to prevent testosterone-related androgen receptor effects in the dermal papilla. This suggests testosterone may also contribute to miniaturization through androgen receptor signaling, with the androgen receptor acting as a “lynchpin” for both testosterone and DHT in susceptible follicles.
Even so, the macaque evidence has clear constraints. Sample sizes were small, dosing equivalence to human scalp use is uncertain (vehicle, skin barrier, follicular penetration), and the overall pattern suggests benefits are linked to continued treatment rather than a permanent reversal of the underlying process.
Study 4 (The few human trials) Two human clinical trials of RU58841 (under the name PSK‑3841) were registered and marked as completed in the early 2000’s. But the interesting thing is that the results from both of these studies have never been published, leaving a critical gap between promising preclinical work and real-world clinical decision-making.
The unpublished PSK-3841 trials:
Completion in 2002: A phase I study (ISRCTN49873657) tested a 5% PSK‑3841 solution twice daily for 4 weeks in about 30 men with androgenetic alopecia, with primary endpoints focused on safety, tolerability, endocrine profiles, plus pharmacokinetics.
Completion in 2003: A larger, multi‑centre, double‑blind trial (ISRCTN71083772) then treated 120 men for 6 months with 2.5% or 5% PSK‑3841 once daily versus vehicle, measuring total and anagen hair counts, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics.
Personal Takeaways The application will be the same as most topicals; apply, rub, dry.
Since the evidence and trials for humans are so limited, it is challenging to have an educated summary. One thing is for certain, and that is 5% is the best strength to use it.
But RU, RU, your side effects are the main concern. In a recent human experiment, it was found that RU does in fact leak into the blood stream and doesn’t stay local. Which this can also in turn lead to cardiovascular risk, now does this mean RU isn’t safe? NO. This was one test that have many others sprinting to debunk it, I just felt the need to address this study. Another article states, “RU58841 directly blocks the receptor from both hormones wherever it reaches sufficient concentration, a more direct suppression of androgen signaling. Approved drugs in RU58841's mechanism class (bicalutamide, enzalutamide) carry a documented, quantified rate of depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular effects in clinical trials, though those figures come from full therapeutic dosing in prostate cancer treatment, not from RU58841's own exposure levels, which haven't been measured against that benchmark.”
NOWWHOISTHEWINNER?
In short: KX-826. Now hold your horse you #teamRU members, this is a question on which one is better? And that would KX, yet RU has its points on why it should win. Again, put it into question-and-answer form. Which compound has the stronger evidence base overall, across efficacy, trial size, and regulatory scrutiny? KX-826, by a wide margin. Which compound has the stronger publicly demonstrated evidence specifically on whether it stays local after topical use? Right now, RU58841 does, precisely because someone finally measured it directly and published the result. So again, whether you are #teamKX or #teamRU, each side has its benefits. But in a guide like this there is no reason for me to not giving it to KX. It has the overall better evidence and trials that correlate directly to hair growth and DHT blockage.
But I’d be foolish not to add the pricing and source availability of the two. Since RU is not under any contract or house name, it is WAY cheaper and WAY easier to source. You can find RU everywhere and for cheap. Yet for KX, this is not the case. Right now, I believe the only way to get it is through the company themselves, meaning they control pricing. In which will lead to less sourcing opportunities and be a bigger hit on the wallet.
SO, if you are on a budget the winner will be RU-58841
Conclusion
RU benefitsKX benefits Lower price Better results Better sourcing More clinical trials More known Approved soon
Now that you know all of this, are you #KxFc or #RuFc? You already know I'm #KxFc
The reason these two products get compared all the time is because of their similarities for the purpose of use. Both KX and RU are both non‑steroidal topical anti‑androgens that block the androgen receptor at the scalp to prevent dihydrotestosterone. In this guide, I will be going over the two products as individuals and then compare the two at the end. But in short, they, on the outside, seem the same, but differ when you dive deep. (Kinda like @splanky vs @Splankу)
But before we begin make sure to drop your predictions of which is better in the comments below, hit the follow button, and give me a gold rep for +3 reputations.
WHAT IS KX-826? Pyrilutamide (also known as KX-826) is a topical nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) drug developed by Kintor Pharmaceuticals. It was developed as a treatment for androgenic alopecia and acne vulgaris. Pyrilutamide works in a different way than other anti-androgenic drugs, such as finasteride or dutasteride. Instead of inhibiting the enzyme 5α-reductase that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, it competitively binds to the androgen receptor. This stops dihydrotestosterone and testosterone from binding to the receptor and exerting their effects.
STUDIES/CLINICAL TRIALS (DISCLAIMER: The main problem with the results of these studies is the fact that KX has no peer-reviewed studies. Meaning that all the results that were shared came straight from the producers of the product, so they could've filtered out the negatives of the test. But this does not take away from the overall success of the product, as there have been many personal testimonies stating the usefulness of the product backing up the test. And the producers cannot lie about the outcome of the results, so all information given is the trvth.) Study 1 The first study, looking at female androgenic alopecia, was a 24-week, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial conducted in China. 160 female participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups, including 0.25% pyrilutamide applied once daily, 0.25% applied twice daily, 0.5% applied once daily, and 0.5% applied twice daily, or placebo groups (one group for once daily, and one group for twice daily). The primary measured outcome was the change in hair growth, as measured by target area non-vellus hair count (TAHC). Essentially, the researchers were counting the number of thick, pigmented hairs (or ‘terminal’ hairs) in a given area, as opposed to the number of fine, unpigmented (vellus) hairs.
The researchers determined that the recommended dose for their phase III trial in China is 0.5% once daily, as it increased hairs by 11.39 counts per cm2 from baseline, compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the researchers said that efficacy was seen as early as the end of week 12 of treatment. When it came to safety, the researchers mentioned that it was well tolerated, with mild adverse events seen that were similar to the placebo.
Study 2 Another 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-regional study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pyrilutamide in 120 men with androgenic alopecia. For this study, the researchers presented a poster at the 6th National Hair Academic Conference in China, and it has since been translated to English online.
The participants were randomized into four groups:
0.25% pyrilutamide applied twice daily
0.5% pyrilutamide applied once daily
0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily
Placebo (most likely treatment with just the cream or emollient that pyrilutamide is suspended in).
The researchers found that the participants that used 0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily showed improvement in total hair count at the end of the 24 weeks, with an increase of 15.34 hairs per cm2 compared to the placebo-treated groups.
Study 3 A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation phase 1 trial was completed in the US over 24 weeks to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of different concentrations of pyrilutamide. The participants included 40 healthy male patients, 18-60 years old with androgenic alopecia, who were treated with multiple ascending dose applications of 0.3%, 1.2%, 4.8%, and 9.6% pyrilutamide.
The study showed no “severe” adverse drug events, with all adverse events relating to the drug application being mild contact dermatitis that healed in a short time. Unfortunately, the amount of time taken to heal was not given.
Furthermore, the researchers measured the concentration of the drug in the blood to measure the risk of any systemic effects. While we do not have the specific numbers, the researchers do mention that the concentration of pyrilutamide in the blood was low, indicating that the topical concentrations used were not enough to cause a systemic accumulation (i.e., it may not lead to effects around the rest of the body after being topically applied, at these concentrations and frequency).
In this study, you can see the concerns some have about the publication of information. Missing specific numbers and time, while they choose to generalize the information.
Study 4 A subsequent phase 2 study was next conducted in the US, with results announced in May 2023. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group clinical study was conducted in 123 male AGA patients who were classified as stage III vertex, IV, or V using the Hamilton-Norwood scale. 93 patients were randomly assigned to either 0.25% once daily (“QD”), 0.5% QD, and 0.5% twice daily (“BID”) pyrilutamide. 30 patients were randomly assigned to placebo groups for each dose.
According to Kintor, the 0.5% BID KX-826 group hair count increased by around 10 hairs per cm2 compared to the baseline after 24 weeks, which was statistically significant. An improvement was seen over the placebo.
Study 5 (After failing to pass the need requirements for a phase 3 pass, KX finally hit its goals to pass phase 3, here are the results.)
The trial was a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase II/III study with adaptive designs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1% and 0.5% KX-826 for the topical treatment of male adults with AGA in China.
Participants took part in the study for 52 weeks.
TAHC –
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 15.33 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 14.46 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the placebo group showed an increase of 4.68 hairs/cm2 from baseline
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 10.65 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 9.78 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
Personal Takeaways Appliance is very simple, spray the target area and rub it in. That’s all, it is like most topicals in the sense that you have to be consistent with it to see results.
As I stated earlier, the main concern of all these studies is the fact that they are not peer-reviewed. This is important because without peer review information provided by Kintor reflects only what the company has chosen to disclose, raising concerns about potential biases or omitted data.
But regarding the product based on the information we do know; I can say that the 0.5% twice a day is the best approach for use. I have seen that they are selling a 0.9% topical but not only is it more expensive, but it also displays no significant increase in hair/cm and can lead to more side effects and risk. Although the side effects of KX are very low to begin with. Reported side effects remain minimal, consisting mostly of localized skin irritation, which is common with any topical solution containing alcohol or propylene glycol carriers. There is no evidence of the systemic hormonal issues which is one of the main sides of other DHT blockers.
WHAT IS RU-58841? RU58841 is a topical androgen receptor antagonist developed in the mid-1990’s to combat androgenic alopecia by preventing DHT from having its effects. As an androgen receptor antagonist, RU58841 blocks the androgen receptors on cell surfaces for the hormone DHT, preventing DHT from exerting its effects.
STUDIES (Now the MAJOR issue with RU studies is that most of them are on animals (things like rats, hamsters, and @batluvr158). When the topical was originally made in the 90’s, the producers suddenly dropped the product after funding issues leaving many of the test unpublished. What I am going to show are the studies that I could find. There might be more out there.)
Study 1 In an early study using an intact hamster flank-organ model, topical RU58841 showed strong local antiandrogen activity with minimal evidence of systemic spillover at low doses. When applied topically at doses up to 100 µg/animal, RU58841 reduced flank-organ area in a dose-dependent manner while showing no effect on the opposite flank organ, no meaningful change in serum testosterone, and no detectable antiandrogenic effects on sex organs (e.g., prostate/seminal vesicles). These findings supported the premise that RU58841 can act locally within a certain exposure window.
Study 2 In the hamster flank-organ study, when RU58841 was given subcutaneously (to mimic complete systemic exposure), systemic antiandrogen signals emerged at higher doses. At 300 to 1000 µg/animal, researchers observed reductions in prostate weight, indicating that systemic antiandrogenic effects can appear once exposure is high enough.
In intact rats, strong androgen-dependent effects were generally absent up to 1 mg/rat regardless of route of administration but became apparent at 10 mg/rat. Testosterone increases were noted only after subcutaneous dosing at the highest dose. This suggests that endocrine feedback can occur when systemic exposure is sufficiently high.
Study 3 The most hair-relevant preclinical data for RU58841 come from studies conducted in stump-tailed macaques. These primate species can develop an androgenic alopecia-like pattern with age, making it a useful, though still not perfect, translational model.
In these experiments, topical RU58841 was applied to an alopecic scalp and produced concentration-dependent improvements in visible hair parameters. A lower concentration (around 0.5%) did not yield impressive results, while a higher concentration (around 5%) produced the strongest regrowth signal over months of treatment.
Reported benefits included increased hair density and hair length. Beyond surface-level changes, the primate works also reported findings that align with meaningful follicle biology improvements, including support for dermal papilla cell growth and evidence consistent with vellus-to-terminal hair conversion.
One particularly notable mechanistic detail from the macaque work is that RU58841 appeared to prevent testosterone-related androgen receptor effects in the dermal papilla. This suggests testosterone may also contribute to miniaturization through androgen receptor signaling, with the androgen receptor acting as a “lynchpin” for both testosterone and DHT in susceptible follicles.
Even so, the macaque evidence has clear constraints. Sample sizes were small, dosing equivalence to human scalp use is uncertain (vehicle, skin barrier, follicular penetration), and the overall pattern suggests benefits are linked to continued treatment rather than a permanent reversal of the underlying process.
Study 4 (The few human trials) Two human clinical trials of RU58841 (under the name PSK‑3841) were registered and marked as completed in the early 2000’s. But the interesting thing is that the results from both of these studies have never been published, leaving a critical gap between promising preclinical work and real-world clinical decision-making.
The unpublished PSK-3841 trials:
Completion in 2002: A phase I study (ISRCTN49873657) tested a 5% PSK‑3841 solution twice daily for 4 weeks in about 30 men with androgenetic alopecia, with primary endpoints focused on safety, tolerability, endocrine profiles, plus pharmacokinetics.
Completion in 2003: A larger, multi‑centre, double‑blind trial (ISRCTN71083772) then treated 120 men for 6 months with 2.5% or 5% PSK‑3841 once daily versus vehicle, measuring total and anagen hair counts, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics.
Personal Takeaways The application will be the same as most topicals; apply, rub, dry.
Since the evidence and trials for humans are so limited, it is challenging to have an educated summary. One thing is for certain, and that is 5% is the best strength to use it.
But RU, RU, your side effects are the main concern. In a recent human experiment, it was found that RU does in fact leak into the blood stream and doesn’t stay local. Which this can also in turn lead to cardiovascular risk, now does this mean RU isn’t safe? NO. This was one test that have many others sprinting to debunk it, I just felt the need to address this study. Another article states, “RU58841 directly blocks the receptor from both hormones wherever it reaches sufficient concentration, a more direct suppression of androgen signaling. Approved drugs in RU58841's mechanism class (bicalutamide, enzalutamide) carry a documented, quantified rate of depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular effects in clinical trials, though those figures come from full therapeutic dosing in prostate cancer treatment, not from RU58841's own exposure levels, which haven't been measured against that benchmark.”
NOWWHOISTHEWINNER?
In short: KX-826. Now hold your horse you #teamRU members, this is a question on which one is better? And that would KX, yet RU has its points on why it should win. Again, put it into question-and-answer form. Which compound has the stronger evidence base overall, across efficacy, trial size, and regulatory scrutiny? KX-826, by a wide margin. Which compound has the stronger publicly demonstrated evidence specifically on whether it stays local after topical use? Right now, RU58841 does, precisely because someone finally measured it directly and published the result. So again, whether you are #teamKX or #teamRU, each side has its benefits. But in a guide like this there is no reason for me to not giving it to KX. It has the overall better evidence and trials that correlate directly to hair growth and DHT blockage.
But I’d be foolish not to add the pricing and source availability of the two. Since RU is not under any contract or house name, it is WAY cheaper and WAY easier to source. You can find RU everywhere and for cheap. Yet for KX, this is not the case. Right now, I believe the only way to get it is through the company themselves, meaning they control pricing. In which will lead to less sourcing opportunities and be a bigger hit on the wallet.
SO, if you are on a budget the winner will be RU-58841
Conclusion
RU benefitsKX benefits Lower price Better results Better sourcing More clinical trials More known Approved soon
Now that you know all of this, are you #KxFc or #RuFc? You already know I'm #KxFc
The reason these two products get compared all the time is because of their similarities for the purpose of use. Both KX and RU are both non‑steroidal topical anti‑androgens that block the androgen receptor at the scalp to prevent dihydrotestosterone. In this guide, I will be going over the two products as individuals and then compare the two at the end. But in short, they, on the outside, seem the same, but differ when you dive deep. (Kinda like @splanky vs @Splankу)
But before we begin make sure to drop your predictions of which is better in the comments below, hit the follow button, and give me a gold rep for +3 reputations.
WHAT IS KX-826? Pyrilutamide (also known as KX-826) is a topical nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) drug developed by Kintor Pharmaceuticals. It was developed as a treatment for androgenic alopecia and acne vulgaris. Pyrilutamide works in a different way than other anti-androgenic drugs, such as finasteride or dutasteride. Instead of inhibiting the enzyme 5α-reductase that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, it competitively binds to the androgen receptor. This stops dihydrotestosterone and testosterone from binding to the receptor and exerting their effects.
STUDIES/CLINICAL TRIALS (DISCLAIMER: The main problem with the results of these studies is the fact that KX has no peer-reviewed studies. Meaning that all the results that were shared came straight from the producers of the product, so they could've filtered out the negatives of the test. But this does not take away from the overall success of the product, as there have been many personal testimonies stating the usefulness of the product backing up the test. And the producers cannot lie about the outcome of the results, so all information given is the trvth.) Study 1 The first study, looking at female androgenic alopecia, was a 24-week, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial conducted in China. 160 female participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups, including 0.25% pyrilutamide applied once daily, 0.25% applied twice daily, 0.5% applied once daily, and 0.5% applied twice daily, or placebo groups (one group for once daily, and one group for twice daily). The primary measured outcome was the change in hair growth, as measured by target area non-vellus hair count (TAHC). Essentially, the researchers were counting the number of thick, pigmented hairs (or ‘terminal’ hairs) in a given area, as opposed to the number of fine, unpigmented (vellus) hairs.
The researchers determined that the recommended dose for their phase III trial in China is 0.5% once daily, as it increased hairs by 11.39 counts per cm2 from baseline, compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the researchers said that efficacy was seen as early as the end of week 12 of treatment. When it came to safety, the researchers mentioned that it was well tolerated, with mild adverse events seen that were similar to the placebo.
Study 2 Another 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-regional study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pyrilutamide in 120 men with androgenic alopecia. For this study, the researchers presented a poster at the 6th National Hair Academic Conference in China, and it has since been translated to English online.
The participants were randomized into four groups:
0.25% pyrilutamide applied twice daily
0.5% pyrilutamide applied once daily
0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily
Placebo (most likely treatment with just the cream or emollient that pyrilutamide is suspended in).
The researchers found that the participants that used 0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily showed improvement in total hair count at the end of the 24 weeks, with an increase of 15.34 hairs per cm2 compared to the placebo-treated groups.
Study 3 A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation phase 1 trial was completed in the US over 24 weeks to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of different concentrations of pyrilutamide. The participants included 40 healthy male patients, 18-60 years old with androgenic alopecia, who were treated with multiple ascending dose applications of 0.3%, 1.2%, 4.8%, and 9.6% pyrilutamide.
The study showed no “severe” adverse drug events, with all adverse events relating to the drug application being mild contact dermatitis that healed in a short time. Unfortunately, the amount of time taken to heal was not given.
Furthermore, the researchers measured the concentration of the drug in the blood to measure the risk of any systemic effects. While we do not have the specific numbers, the researchers do mention that the concentration of pyrilutamide in the blood was low, indicating that the topical concentrations used were not enough to cause a systemic accumulation (i.e., it may not lead to effects around the rest of the body after being topically applied, at these concentrations and frequency).
In this study, you can see the concerns some have about the publication of information. Missing specific numbers and time, while they choose to generalize the information.
Study 4 A subsequent phase 2 study was next conducted in the US, with results announced in May 2023. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group clinical study was conducted in 123 male AGA patients who were classified as stage III vertex, IV, or V using the Hamilton-Norwood scale. 93 patients were randomly assigned to either 0.25% once daily (“QD”), 0.5% QD, and 0.5% twice daily (“BID”) pyrilutamide. 30 patients were randomly assigned to placebo groups for each dose.
According to Kintor, the 0.5% BID KX-826 group hair count increased by around 10 hairs per cm2 compared to the baseline after 24 weeks, which was statistically significant. An improvement was seen over the placebo.
Study 5 (After failing to pass the need requirements for a phase 3 pass, KX finally hit its goals to pass phase 3, here are the results.)
The trial was a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase II/III study with adaptive designs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1% and 0.5% KX-826 for the topical treatment of male adults with AGA in China.
Participants took part in the study for 52 weeks.
TAHC –
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 15.33 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 14.46 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the placebo group showed an increase of 4.68 hairs/cm2 from baseline
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 10.65 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 9.78 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
Personal Takeaways Appliance is very simple, spray the target area and rub it in. That’s all, it is like most topicals in the sense that you have to be consistent with it to see results.
As I stated earlier, the main concern of all these studies is the fact that they are not peer-reviewed. This is important because without peer review information provided by Kintor reflects only what the company has chosen to disclose, raising concerns about potential biases or omitted data.
But regarding the product based on the information we do know; I can say that the 0.5% twice a day is the best approach for use. I have seen that they are selling a 0.9% topical but not only is it more expensive, but it also displays no significant increase in hair/cm and can lead to more side effects and risk. Although the side effects of KX are very low to begin with. Reported side effects remain minimal, consisting mostly of localized skin irritation, which is common with any topical solution containing alcohol or propylene glycol carriers. There is no evidence of the systemic hormonal issues which is one of the main sides of other DHT blockers.
WHAT IS RU-58841? RU58841 is a topical androgen receptor antagonist developed in the mid-1990’s to combat androgenic alopecia by preventing DHT from having its effects. As an androgen receptor antagonist, RU58841 blocks the androgen receptors on cell surfaces for the hormone DHT, preventing DHT from exerting its effects.
STUDIES (Now the MAJOR issue with RU studies is that most of them are on animals (things like rats, hamsters, and @batluvr158). When the topical was originally made in the 90’s, the producers suddenly dropped the product after funding issues leaving many of the test unpublished. What I am going to show are the studies that I could find. There might be more out there.)
Study 1 In an early study using an intact hamster flank-organ model, topical RU58841 showed strong local antiandrogen activity with minimal evidence of systemic spillover at low doses. When applied topically at doses up to 100 µg/animal, RU58841 reduced flank-organ area in a dose-dependent manner while showing no effect on the opposite flank organ, no meaningful change in serum testosterone, and no detectable antiandrogenic effects on sex organs (e.g., prostate/seminal vesicles). These findings supported the premise that RU58841 can act locally within a certain exposure window.
Study 2 In the hamster flank-organ study, when RU58841 was given subcutaneously (to mimic complete systemic exposure), systemic antiandrogen signals emerged at higher doses. At 300 to 1000 µg/animal, researchers observed reductions in prostate weight, indicating that systemic antiandrogenic effects can appear once exposure is high enough.
In intact rats, strong androgen-dependent effects were generally absent up to 1 mg/rat regardless of route of administration but became apparent at 10 mg/rat. Testosterone increases were noted only after subcutaneous dosing at the highest dose. This suggests that endocrine feedback can occur when systemic exposure is sufficiently high.
Study 3 The most hair-relevant preclinical data for RU58841 come from studies conducted in stump-tailed macaques. These primate species can develop an androgenic alopecia-like pattern with age, making it a useful, though still not perfect, translational model.
In these experiments, topical RU58841 was applied to an alopecic scalp and produced concentration-dependent improvements in visible hair parameters. A lower concentration (around 0.5%) did not yield impressive results, while a higher concentration (around 5%) produced the strongest regrowth signal over months of treatment.
Reported benefits included increased hair density and hair length. Beyond surface-level changes, the primate works also reported findings that align with meaningful follicle biology improvements, including support for dermal papilla cell growth and evidence consistent with vellus-to-terminal hair conversion.
One particularly notable mechanistic detail from the macaque work is that RU58841 appeared to prevent testosterone-related androgen receptor effects in the dermal papilla. This suggests testosterone may also contribute to miniaturization through androgen receptor signaling, with the androgen receptor acting as a “lynchpin” for both testosterone and DHT in susceptible follicles.
Even so, the macaque evidence has clear constraints. Sample sizes were small, dosing equivalence to human scalp use is uncertain (vehicle, skin barrier, follicular penetration), and the overall pattern suggests benefits are linked to continued treatment rather than a permanent reversal of the underlying process.
Study 4 (The few human trials) Two human clinical trials of RU58841 (under the name PSK‑3841) were registered and marked as completed in the early 2000’s. But the interesting thing is that the results from both of these studies have never been published, leaving a critical gap between promising preclinical work and real-world clinical decision-making.
The unpublished PSK-3841 trials:
Completion in 2002: A phase I study (ISRCTN49873657) tested a 5% PSK‑3841 solution twice daily for 4 weeks in about 30 men with androgenetic alopecia, with primary endpoints focused on safety, tolerability, endocrine profiles, plus pharmacokinetics.
Completion in 2003: A larger, multi‑centre, double‑blind trial (ISRCTN71083772) then treated 120 men for 6 months with 2.5% or 5% PSK‑3841 once daily versus vehicle, measuring total and anagen hair counts, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics.
Personal Takeaways The application will be the same as most topicals; apply, rub, dry.
Since the evidence and trials for humans are so limited, it is challenging to have an educated summary. One thing is for certain, and that is 5% is the best strength to use it.
But RU, RU, your side effects are the main concern. In a recent human experiment, it was found that RU does in fact leak into the blood stream and doesn’t stay local. Which this can also in turn lead to cardiovascular risk, now does this mean RU isn’t safe? NO. This was one test that have many others sprinting to debunk it, I just felt the need to address this study. Another article states, “RU58841 directly blocks the receptor from both hormones wherever it reaches sufficient concentration, a more direct suppression of androgen signaling. Approved drugs in RU58841's mechanism class (bicalutamide, enzalutamide) carry a documented, quantified rate of depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular effects in clinical trials, though those figures come from full therapeutic dosing in prostate cancer treatment, not from RU58841's own exposure levels, which haven't been measured against that benchmark.”
NOWWHOISTHEWINNER?
In short: KX-826. Now hold your horse you #teamRU members, this is a question on which one is better? And that would KX, yet RU has its points on why it should win. Again, put it into question-and-answer form. Which compound has the stronger evidence base overall, across efficacy, trial size, and regulatory scrutiny? KX-826, by a wide margin. Which compound has the stronger publicly demonstrated evidence specifically on whether it stays local after topical use? Right now, RU58841 does, precisely because someone finally measured it directly and published the result. So again, whether you are #teamKX or #teamRU, each side has its benefits. But in a guide like this there is no reason for me to not giving it to KX. It has the overall better evidence and trials that correlate directly to hair growth and DHT blockage.
But I’d be foolish not to add the pricing and source availability of the two. Since RU is not under any contract or house name, it is WAY cheaper and WAY easier to source. You can find RU everywhere and for cheap. Yet for KX, this is not the case. Right now, I believe the only way to get it is through the company themselves, meaning they control pricing. In which will lead to less sourcing opportunities and be a bigger hit on the wallet.
SO, if you are on a budget the winner will be RU-58841
Conclusion
RU benefitsKX benefits Lower price Better results Better sourcing More clinical trials More known Approved soon
Now that you know all of this, are you #KxFc or #RuFc? You already know I'm #KxFc
The reason these two products get compared all the time is because of their similarities for the purpose of use. Both KX and RU are both non‑steroidal topical anti‑androgens that block the androgen receptor at the scalp to prevent dihydrotestosterone. In this guide, I will be going over the two products as individuals and then compare the two at the end. But in short, they, on the outside, seem the same, but differ when you dive deep. (Kinda like @splanky vs @Splankу)
But before we begin make sure to drop your predictions of which is better in the comments below, hit the follow button, and give me a gold rep for +3 reputations.
WHAT IS KX-826? Pyrilutamide (also known as KX-826) is a topical nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) drug developed by Kintor Pharmaceuticals. It was developed as a treatment for androgenic alopecia and acne vulgaris. Pyrilutamide works in a different way than other anti-androgenic drugs, such as finasteride or dutasteride. Instead of inhibiting the enzyme 5α-reductase that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, it competitively binds to the androgen receptor. This stops dihydrotestosterone and testosterone from binding to the receptor and exerting their effects.
STUDIES/CLINICAL TRIALS (DISCLAIMER: The main problem with the results of these studies is the fact that KX has no peer-reviewed studies. Meaning that all the results that were shared came straight from the producers of the product, so they could've filtered out the negatives of the test. But this does not take away from the overall success of the product, as there have been many personal testimonies stating the usefulness of the product backing up the test. And the producers cannot lie about the outcome of the results, so all information given is the trvth.) Study 1 The first study, looking at female androgenic alopecia, was a 24-week, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial conducted in China. 160 female participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups, including 0.25% pyrilutamide applied once daily, 0.25% applied twice daily, 0.5% applied once daily, and 0.5% applied twice daily, or placebo groups (one group for once daily, and one group for twice daily). The primary measured outcome was the change in hair growth, as measured by target area non-vellus hair count (TAHC). Essentially, the researchers were counting the number of thick, pigmented hairs (or ‘terminal’ hairs) in a given area, as opposed to the number of fine, unpigmented (vellus) hairs.
The researchers determined that the recommended dose for their phase III trial in China is 0.5% once daily, as it increased hairs by 11.39 counts per cm2 from baseline, compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the researchers said that efficacy was seen as early as the end of week 12 of treatment. When it came to safety, the researchers mentioned that it was well tolerated, with mild adverse events seen that were similar to the placebo.
Study 2 Another 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-regional study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pyrilutamide in 120 men with androgenic alopecia. For this study, the researchers presented a poster at the 6th National Hair Academic Conference in China, and it has since been translated to English online.
The participants were randomized into four groups:
0.25% pyrilutamide applied twice daily
0.5% pyrilutamide applied once daily
0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily
Placebo (most likely treatment with just the cream or emollient that pyrilutamide is suspended in).
The researchers found that the participants that used 0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily showed improvement in total hair count at the end of the 24 weeks, with an increase of 15.34 hairs per cm2 compared to the placebo-treated groups.
Study 3 A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation phase 1 trial was completed in the US over 24 weeks to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of different concentrations of pyrilutamide. The participants included 40 healthy male patients, 18-60 years old with androgenic alopecia, who were treated with multiple ascending dose applications of 0.3%, 1.2%, 4.8%, and 9.6% pyrilutamide.
The study showed no “severe” adverse drug events, with all adverse events relating to the drug application being mild contact dermatitis that healed in a short time. Unfortunately, the amount of time taken to heal was not given.
Furthermore, the researchers measured the concentration of the drug in the blood to measure the risk of any systemic effects. While we do not have the specific numbers, the researchers do mention that the concentration of pyrilutamide in the blood was low, indicating that the topical concentrations used were not enough to cause a systemic accumulation (i.e., it may not lead to effects around the rest of the body after being topically applied, at these concentrations and frequency).
In this study, you can see the concerns some have about the publication of information. Missing specific numbers and time, while they choose to generalize the information.
Study 4 A subsequent phase 2 study was next conducted in the US, with results announced in May 2023. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group clinical study was conducted in 123 male AGA patients who were classified as stage III vertex, IV, or V using the Hamilton-Norwood scale. 93 patients were randomly assigned to either 0.25% once daily (“QD”), 0.5% QD, and 0.5% twice daily (“BID”) pyrilutamide. 30 patients were randomly assigned to placebo groups for each dose.
According to Kintor, the 0.5% BID KX-826 group hair count increased by around 10 hairs per cm2 compared to the baseline after 24 weeks, which was statistically significant. An improvement was seen over the placebo.
Study 5 (After failing to pass the need requirements for a phase 3 pass, KX finally hit its goals to pass phase 3, here are the results.)
The trial was a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase II/III study with adaptive designs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1% and 0.5% KX-826 for the topical treatment of male adults with AGA in China.
Participants took part in the study for 52 weeks.
TAHC –
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 15.33 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 14.46 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the placebo group showed an increase of 4.68 hairs/cm2 from baseline
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 10.65 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 9.78 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
Personal Takeaways Appliance is very simple, spray the target area and rub it in. That’s all, it is like most topicals in the sense that you have to be consistent with it to see results.
As I stated earlier, the main concern of all these studies is the fact that they are not peer-reviewed. This is important because without peer review information provided by Kintor reflects only what the company has chosen to disclose, raising concerns about potential biases or omitted data.
But regarding the product based on the information we do know; I can say that the 0.5% twice a day is the best approach for use. I have seen that they are selling a 0.9% topical but not only is it more expensive, but it also displays no significant increase in hair/cm and can lead to more side effects and risk. Although the side effects of KX are very low to begin with. Reported side effects remain minimal, consisting mostly of localized skin irritation, which is common with any topical solution containing alcohol or propylene glycol carriers. There is no evidence of the systemic hormonal issues which is one of the main sides of other DHT blockers.
WHAT IS RU-58841? RU58841 is a topical androgen receptor antagonist developed in the mid-1990’s to combat androgenic alopecia by preventing DHT from having its effects. As an androgen receptor antagonist, RU58841 blocks the androgen receptors on cell surfaces for the hormone DHT, preventing DHT from exerting its effects.
STUDIES (Now the MAJOR issue with RU studies is that most of them are on animals (things like rats, hamsters, and @batluvr158). When the topical was originally made in the 90’s, the producers suddenly dropped the product after funding issues leaving many of the test unpublished. What I am going to show are the studies that I could find. There might be more out there.)
Study 1 In an early study using an intact hamster flank-organ model, topical RU58841 showed strong local antiandrogen activity with minimal evidence of systemic spillover at low doses. When applied topically at doses up to 100 µg/animal, RU58841 reduced flank-organ area in a dose-dependent manner while showing no effect on the opposite flank organ, no meaningful change in serum testosterone, and no detectable antiandrogenic effects on sex organs (e.g., prostate/seminal vesicles). These findings supported the premise that RU58841 can act locally within a certain exposure window.
Study 2 In the hamster flank-organ study, when RU58841 was given subcutaneously (to mimic complete systemic exposure), systemic antiandrogen signals emerged at higher doses. At 300 to 1000 µg/animal, researchers observed reductions in prostate weight, indicating that systemic antiandrogenic effects can appear once exposure is high enough.
In intact rats, strong androgen-dependent effects were generally absent up to 1 mg/rat regardless of route of administration but became apparent at 10 mg/rat. Testosterone increases were noted only after subcutaneous dosing at the highest dose. This suggests that endocrine feedback can occur when systemic exposure is sufficiently high.
Study 3 The most hair-relevant preclinical data for RU58841 come from studies conducted in stump-tailed macaques. These primate species can develop an androgenic alopecia-like pattern with age, making it a useful, though still not perfect, translational model.
In these experiments, topical RU58841 was applied to an alopecic scalp and produced concentration-dependent improvements in visible hair parameters. A lower concentration (around 0.5%) did not yield impressive results, while a higher concentration (around 5%) produced the strongest regrowth signal over months of treatment.
Reported benefits included increased hair density and hair length. Beyond surface-level changes, the primate works also reported findings that align with meaningful follicle biology improvements, including support for dermal papilla cell growth and evidence consistent with vellus-to-terminal hair conversion.
One particularly notable mechanistic detail from the macaque work is that RU58841 appeared to prevent testosterone-related androgen receptor effects in the dermal papilla. This suggests testosterone may also contribute to miniaturization through androgen receptor signaling, with the androgen receptor acting as a “lynchpin” for both testosterone and DHT in susceptible follicles.
Even so, the macaque evidence has clear constraints. Sample sizes were small, dosing equivalence to human scalp use is uncertain (vehicle, skin barrier, follicular penetration), and the overall pattern suggests benefits are linked to continued treatment rather than a permanent reversal of the underlying process.
Study 4 (The few human trials) Two human clinical trials of RU58841 (under the name PSK‑3841) were registered and marked as completed in the early 2000’s. But the interesting thing is that the results from both of these studies have never been published, leaving a critical gap between promising preclinical work and real-world clinical decision-making.
The unpublished PSK-3841 trials:
Completion in 2002: A phase I study (ISRCTN49873657) tested a 5% PSK‑3841 solution twice daily for 4 weeks in about 30 men with androgenetic alopecia, with primary endpoints focused on safety, tolerability, endocrine profiles, plus pharmacokinetics.
Completion in 2003: A larger, multi‑centre, double‑blind trial (ISRCTN71083772) then treated 120 men for 6 months with 2.5% or 5% PSK‑3841 once daily versus vehicle, measuring total and anagen hair counts, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics.
Personal Takeaways The application will be the same as most topicals; apply, rub, dry.
Since the evidence and trials for humans are so limited, it is challenging to have an educated summary. One thing is for certain, and that is 5% is the best strength to use it.
But RU, RU, your side effects are the main concern. In a recent human experiment, it was found that RU does in fact leak into the blood stream and doesn’t stay local. Which this can also in turn lead to cardiovascular risk, now does this mean RU isn’t safe? NO. This was one test that have many others sprinting to debunk it, I just felt the need to address this study. Another article states, “RU58841 directly blocks the receptor from both hormones wherever it reaches sufficient concentration, a more direct suppression of androgen signaling. Approved drugs in RU58841's mechanism class (bicalutamide, enzalutamide) carry a documented, quantified rate of depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular effects in clinical trials, though those figures come from full therapeutic dosing in prostate cancer treatment, not from RU58841's own exposure levels, which haven't been measured against that benchmark.”
NOWWHOISTHEWINNER?
In short: KX-826. Now hold your horse you #teamRU members, this is a question on which one is better? And that would KX, yet RU has its points on why it should win. Again, put it into question-and-answer form. Which compound has the stronger evidence base overall, across efficacy, trial size, and regulatory scrutiny? KX-826, by a wide margin. Which compound has the stronger publicly demonstrated evidence specifically on whether it stays local after topical use? Right now, RU58841 does, precisely because someone finally measured it directly and published the result. So again, whether you are #teamKX or #teamRU, each side has its benefits. But in a guide like this there is no reason for me to not giving it to KX. It has the overall better evidence and trials that correlate directly to hair growth and DHT blockage.
But I’d be foolish not to add the pricing and source availability of the two. Since RU is not under any contract or house name, it is WAY cheaper and WAY easier to source. You can find RU everywhere and for cheap. Yet for KX, this is not the case. Right now, I believe the only way to get it is through the company themselves, meaning they control pricing. In which will lead to less sourcing opportunities and be a bigger hit on the wallet.
SO, if you are on a budget the winner will be RU-58841
Conclusion
RU benefitsKX benefits Lower price Better results Better sourcing More clinical trials More known Approved soon
Now that you know all of this, are you #KxFc or #RuFc? You already know I'm #KxFc
I’ve never even submitted a request. I feel like to belong there others need to. It’s also not that big of a deal, I just want one bc it would look cool.
Also only like 1-2 of my guides are somewhat worthy, the guides on MR are hella high iq
The reason these two products get compared all the time is because of their similarities for the purpose of use. Both KX and RU are both non‑steroidal topical anti‑androgens that block the androgen receptor at the scalp to prevent dihydrotestosterone. In this guide, I will be going over the two products as individuals and then compare the two at the end. But in short, they, on the outside, seem the same, but differ when you dive deep. (Kinda like @splanky vs @Splankу)
But before we begin make sure to drop your predictions of which is better in the comments below, hit the follow button, and give me a gold rep for +3 reputations.
WHAT IS KX-826? Pyrilutamide (also known as KX-826) is a topical nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) drug developed by Kintor Pharmaceuticals. It was developed as a treatment for androgenic alopecia and acne vulgaris. Pyrilutamide works in a different way than other anti-androgenic drugs, such as finasteride or dutasteride. Instead of inhibiting the enzyme 5α-reductase that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, it competitively binds to the androgen receptor. This stops dihydrotestosterone and testosterone from binding to the receptor and exerting their effects.
STUDIES/CLINICAL TRIALS (DISCLAIMER: The main problem with the results of these studies is the fact that KX has no peer-reviewed studies. Meaning that all the results that were shared came straight from the producers of the product, so they could've filtered out the negatives of the test. But this does not take away from the overall success of the product, as there have been many personal testimonies stating the usefulness of the product backing up the test. And the producers cannot lie about the outcome of the results, so all information given is the trvth.) Study 1 The first study, looking at female androgenic alopecia, was a 24-week, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial conducted in China. 160 female participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups, including 0.25% pyrilutamide applied once daily, 0.25% applied twice daily, 0.5% applied once daily, and 0.5% applied twice daily, or placebo groups (one group for once daily, and one group for twice daily). The primary measured outcome was the change in hair growth, as measured by target area non-vellus hair count (TAHC). Essentially, the researchers were counting the number of thick, pigmented hairs (or ‘terminal’ hairs) in a given area, as opposed to the number of fine, unpigmented (vellus) hairs.
The researchers determined that the recommended dose for their phase III trial in China is 0.5% once daily, as it increased hairs by 11.39 counts per cm2 from baseline, compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the researchers said that efficacy was seen as early as the end of week 12 of treatment. When it came to safety, the researchers mentioned that it was well tolerated, with mild adverse events seen that were similar to the placebo.
Study 2 Another 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-regional study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pyrilutamide in 120 men with androgenic alopecia. For this study, the researchers presented a poster at the 6th National Hair Academic Conference in China, and it has since been translated to English online.
The participants were randomized into four groups:
0.25% pyrilutamide applied twice daily
0.5% pyrilutamide applied once daily
0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily
Placebo (most likely treatment with just the cream or emollient that pyrilutamide is suspended in).
The researchers found that the participants that used 0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily showed improvement in total hair count at the end of the 24 weeks, with an increase of 15.34 hairs per cm2 compared to the placebo-treated groups.
Study 3 A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation phase 1 trial was completed in the US over 24 weeks to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of different concentrations of pyrilutamide. The participants included 40 healthy male patients, 18-60 years old with androgenic alopecia, who were treated with multiple ascending dose applications of 0.3%, 1.2%, 4.8%, and 9.6% pyrilutamide.
The study showed no “severe” adverse drug events, with all adverse events relating to the drug application being mild contact dermatitis that healed in a short time. Unfortunately, the amount of time taken to heal was not given.
Furthermore, the researchers measured the concentration of the drug in the blood to measure the risk of any systemic effects. While we do not have the specific numbers, the researchers do mention that the concentration of pyrilutamide in the blood was low, indicating that the topical concentrations used were not enough to cause a systemic accumulation (i.e., it may not lead to effects around the rest of the body after being topically applied, at these concentrations and frequency).
In this study, you can see the concerns some have about the publication of information. Missing specific numbers and time, while they choose to generalize the information.
Study 4 A subsequent phase 2 study was next conducted in the US, with results announced in May 2023. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group clinical study was conducted in 123 male AGA patients who were classified as stage III vertex, IV, or V using the Hamilton-Norwood scale. 93 patients were randomly assigned to either 0.25% once daily (“QD”), 0.5% QD, and 0.5% twice daily (“BID”) pyrilutamide. 30 patients were randomly assigned to placebo groups for each dose.
According to Kintor, the 0.5% BID KX-826 group hair count increased by around 10 hairs per cm2 compared to the baseline after 24 weeks, which was statistically significant. An improvement was seen over the placebo.
Study 5 (After failing to pass the need requirements for a phase 3 pass, KX finally hit its goals to pass phase 3, here are the results.)
The trial was a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase II/III study with adaptive designs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1% and 0.5% KX-826 for the topical treatment of male adults with AGA in China.
Participants took part in the study for 52 weeks.
TAHC –
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 15.33 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 14.46 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the placebo group showed an increase of 4.68 hairs/cm2 from baseline
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 10.65 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 9.78 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
Personal Takeaways Appliance is very simple, spray the target area and rub it in. That’s all, it is like most topicals in the sense that you have to be consistent with it to see results.
As I stated earlier, the main concern of all these studies is the fact that they are not peer-reviewed. This is important because without peer review information provided by Kintor reflects only what the company has chosen to disclose, raising concerns about potential biases or omitted data.
But regarding the product based on the information we do know; I can say that the 0.5% twice a day is the best approach for use. I have seen that they are selling a 0.9% topical but not only is it more expensive, but it also displays no significant increase in hair/cm and can lead to more side effects and risk. Although the side effects of KX are very low to begin with. Reported side effects remain minimal, consisting mostly of localized skin irritation, which is common with any topical solution containing alcohol or propylene glycol carriers. There is no evidence of the systemic hormonal issues which is one of the main sides of other DHT blockers.
WHAT IS RU-58841? RU58841 is a topical androgen receptor antagonist developed in the mid-1990’s to combat androgenic alopecia by preventing DHT from having its effects. As an androgen receptor antagonist, RU58841 blocks the androgen receptors on cell surfaces for the hormone DHT, preventing DHT from exerting its effects.
STUDIES (Now the MAJOR issue with RU studies is that most of them are on animals (things like rats, hamsters, and @batluvr158). When the topical was originally made in the 90’s, the producers suddenly dropped the product after funding issues leaving many of the test unpublished. What I am going to show are the studies that I could find. There might be more out there.)
Study 1 In an early study using an intact hamster flank-organ model, topical RU58841 showed strong local antiandrogen activity with minimal evidence of systemic spillover at low doses. When applied topically at doses up to 100 µg/animal, RU58841 reduced flank-organ area in a dose-dependent manner while showing no effect on the opposite flank organ, no meaningful change in serum testosterone, and no detectable antiandrogenic effects on sex organs (e.g., prostate/seminal vesicles). These findings supported the premise that RU58841 can act locally within a certain exposure window.
Study 2 In the hamster flank-organ study, when RU58841 was given subcutaneously (to mimic complete systemic exposure), systemic antiandrogen signals emerged at higher doses. At 300 to 1000 µg/animal, researchers observed reductions in prostate weight, indicating that systemic antiandrogenic effects can appear once exposure is high enough.
In intact rats, strong androgen-dependent effects were generally absent up to 1 mg/rat regardless of route of administration but became apparent at 10 mg/rat. Testosterone increases were noted only after subcutaneous dosing at the highest dose. This suggests that endocrine feedback can occur when systemic exposure is sufficiently high.
Study 3 The most hair-relevant preclinical data for RU58841 come from studies conducted in stump-tailed macaques. These primate species can develop an androgenic alopecia-like pattern with age, making it a useful, though still not perfect, translational model.
In these experiments, topical RU58841 was applied to an alopecic scalp and produced concentration-dependent improvements in visible hair parameters. A lower concentration (around 0.5%) did not yield impressive results, while a higher concentration (around 5%) produced the strongest regrowth signal over months of treatment.
Reported benefits included increased hair density and hair length. Beyond surface-level changes, the primate works also reported findings that align with meaningful follicle biology improvements, including support for dermal papilla cell growth and evidence consistent with vellus-to-terminal hair conversion.
One particularly notable mechanistic detail from the macaque work is that RU58841 appeared to prevent testosterone-related androgen receptor effects in the dermal papilla. This suggests testosterone may also contribute to miniaturization through androgen receptor signaling, with the androgen receptor acting as a “lynchpin” for both testosterone and DHT in susceptible follicles.
Even so, the macaque evidence has clear constraints. Sample sizes were small, dosing equivalence to human scalp use is uncertain (vehicle, skin barrier, follicular penetration), and the overall pattern suggests benefits are linked to continued treatment rather than a permanent reversal of the underlying process.
Study 4 (The few human trials) Two human clinical trials of RU58841 (under the name PSK‑3841) were registered and marked as completed in the early 2000’s. But the interesting thing is that the results from both of these studies have never been published, leaving a critical gap between promising preclinical work and real-world clinical decision-making.
The unpublished PSK-3841 trials:
Completion in 2002: A phase I study (ISRCTN49873657) tested a 5% PSK‑3841 solution twice daily for 4 weeks in about 30 men with androgenetic alopecia, with primary endpoints focused on safety, tolerability, endocrine profiles, plus pharmacokinetics.
Completion in 2003: A larger, multi‑centre, double‑blind trial (ISRCTN71083772) then treated 120 men for 6 months with 2.5% or 5% PSK‑3841 once daily versus vehicle, measuring total and anagen hair counts, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics.
Personal Takeaways The application will be the same as most topicals; apply, rub, dry.
Since the evidence and trials for humans are so limited, it is challenging to have an educated summary. One thing is for certain, and that is 5% is the best strength to use it.
But RU, RU, your side effects are the main concern. In a recent human experiment, it was found that RU does in fact leak into the blood stream and doesn’t stay local. Which this can also in turn lead to cardiovascular risk, now does this mean RU isn’t safe? NO. This was one test that have many others sprinting to debunk it, I just felt the need to address this study. Another article states, “RU58841 directly blocks the receptor from both hormones wherever it reaches sufficient concentration, a more direct suppression of androgen signaling. Approved drugs in RU58841's mechanism class (bicalutamide, enzalutamide) carry a documented, quantified rate of depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular effects in clinical trials, though those figures come from full therapeutic dosing in prostate cancer treatment, not from RU58841's own exposure levels, which haven't been measured against that benchmark.”
NOWWHOISTHEWINNER?
In short: KX-826. Now hold your horse you #teamRU members, this is a question on which one is better? And that would KX, yet RU has its points on why it should win. Again, put it into question-and-answer form. Which compound has the stronger evidence base overall, across efficacy, trial size, and regulatory scrutiny? KX-826, by a wide margin. Which compound has the stronger publicly demonstrated evidence specifically on whether it stays local after topical use? Right now, RU58841 does, precisely because someone finally measured it directly and published the result. So again, whether you are #teamKX or #teamRU, each side has its benefits. But in a guide like this there is no reason for me to not giving it to KX. It has the overall better evidence and trials that correlate directly to hair growth and DHT blockage.
But I’d be foolish not to add the pricing and source availability of the two. Since RU is not under any contract or house name, it is WAY cheaper and WAY easier to source. You can find RU everywhere and for cheap. Yet for KX, this is not the case. Right now, I believe the only way to get it is through the company themselves, meaning they control pricing. In which will lead to less sourcing opportunities and be a bigger hit on the wallet.
SO, if you are on a budget the winner will be RU-58841
Conclusion
RU benefitsKX benefits Lower price Better results Better sourcing More clinical trials More known Approved soon
Now that you know all of this, are you #KxFc or #RuFc? You already know I'm #KxFc
Yeah that’s the main article regarding KX.
Since it is still in clinical trials that source provided updated information on the trials and the tests beforehand.
I wanted to find somewhere that was not the company itself to see any narration that would not be found it the companies website
The reason these two products get compared all the time is because of their similarities for the purpose of use. Both KX and RU are both non‑steroidal topical anti‑androgens that block the androgen receptor at the scalp to prevent dihydrotestosterone. In this guide, I will be going over the two products as individuals and then compare the two at the end. But in short, they, on the outside, seem the same, but differ when you dive deep. (Kinda like @splanky vs @Splankу)
But before we begin make sure to drop your predictions of which is better in the comments below, hit the follow button, and give me a gold rep for +3 reputations.
WHAT IS KX-826? Pyrilutamide (also known as KX-826) is a topical nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) drug developed by Kintor Pharmaceuticals. It was developed as a treatment for androgenic alopecia and acne vulgaris. Pyrilutamide works in a different way than other anti-androgenic drugs, such as finasteride or dutasteride. Instead of inhibiting the enzyme 5α-reductase that catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, it competitively binds to the androgen receptor. This stops dihydrotestosterone and testosterone from binding to the receptor and exerting their effects.
STUDIES/CLINICAL TRIALS (DISCLAIMER: The main problem with the results of these studies is the fact that KX has no peer-reviewed studies. Meaning that all the results that were shared came straight from the producers of the product, so they could've filtered out the negatives of the test. But this does not take away from the overall success of the product, as there have been many personal testimonies stating the usefulness of the product backing up the test. And the producers cannot lie about the outcome of the results, so all information given is the trvth.) Study 1 The first study, looking at female androgenic alopecia, was a 24-week, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial conducted in China. 160 female participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups, including 0.25% pyrilutamide applied once daily, 0.25% applied twice daily, 0.5% applied once daily, and 0.5% applied twice daily, or placebo groups (one group for once daily, and one group for twice daily). The primary measured outcome was the change in hair growth, as measured by target area non-vellus hair count (TAHC). Essentially, the researchers were counting the number of thick, pigmented hairs (or ‘terminal’ hairs) in a given area, as opposed to the number of fine, unpigmented (vellus) hairs.
The researchers determined that the recommended dose for their phase III trial in China is 0.5% once daily, as it increased hairs by 11.39 counts per cm2 from baseline, compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the researchers said that efficacy was seen as early as the end of week 12 of treatment. When it came to safety, the researchers mentioned that it was well tolerated, with mild adverse events seen that were similar to the placebo.
Study 2 Another 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-regional study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pyrilutamide in 120 men with androgenic alopecia. For this study, the researchers presented a poster at the 6th National Hair Academic Conference in China, and it has since been translated to English online.
The participants were randomized into four groups:
0.25% pyrilutamide applied twice daily
0.5% pyrilutamide applied once daily
0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily
Placebo (most likely treatment with just the cream or emollient that pyrilutamide is suspended in).
The researchers found that the participants that used 0.5% pyrilutamide twice daily showed improvement in total hair count at the end of the 24 weeks, with an increase of 15.34 hairs per cm2 compared to the placebo-treated groups.
Study 3 A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation phase 1 trial was completed in the US over 24 weeks to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of different concentrations of pyrilutamide. The participants included 40 healthy male patients, 18-60 years old with androgenic alopecia, who were treated with multiple ascending dose applications of 0.3%, 1.2%, 4.8%, and 9.6% pyrilutamide.
The study showed no “severe” adverse drug events, with all adverse events relating to the drug application being mild contact dermatitis that healed in a short time. Unfortunately, the amount of time taken to heal was not given.
Furthermore, the researchers measured the concentration of the drug in the blood to measure the risk of any systemic effects. While we do not have the specific numbers, the researchers do mention that the concentration of pyrilutamide in the blood was low, indicating that the topical concentrations used were not enough to cause a systemic accumulation (i.e., it may not lead to effects around the rest of the body after being topically applied, at these concentrations and frequency).
In this study, you can see the concerns some have about the publication of information. Missing specific numbers and time, while they choose to generalize the information.
Study 4 A subsequent phase 2 study was next conducted in the US, with results announced in May 2023. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group clinical study was conducted in 123 male AGA patients who were classified as stage III vertex, IV, or V using the Hamilton-Norwood scale. 93 patients were randomly assigned to either 0.25% once daily (“QD”), 0.5% QD, and 0.5% twice daily (“BID”) pyrilutamide. 30 patients were randomly assigned to placebo groups for each dose.
According to Kintor, the 0.5% BID KX-826 group hair count increased by around 10 hairs per cm2 compared to the baseline after 24 weeks, which was statistically significant. An improvement was seen over the placebo.
Study 5 (After failing to pass the need requirements for a phase 3 pass, KX finally hit its goals to pass phase 3, here are the results.)
The trial was a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase II/III study with adaptive designs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1% and 0.5% KX-826 for the topical treatment of male adults with AGA in China.
Participants took part in the study for 52 weeks.
TAHC –
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 15.33 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 14.46 hairs/cm2 from baseline.
The TAHC of the placebo group showed an increase of 4.68 hairs/cm2 from baseline
The TAHC of the 1% twice daily group showed an increase of 10.65 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
The TAHC of the 0.5% twice daily group showed an increase of 9.78 hairs/cm2 from the placebo group – this was statistically significant (p<0.0001)
Personal Takeaways Appliance is very simple, spray the target area and rub it in. That’s all, it is like most topicals in the sense that you have to be consistent with it to see results.
As I stated earlier, the main concern of all these studies is the fact that they are not peer-reviewed. This is important because without peer review information provided by Kintor reflects only what the company has chosen to disclose, raising concerns about potential biases or omitted data.
But regarding the product based on the information we do know; I can say that the 0.5% twice a day is the best approach for use. I have seen that they are selling a 0.9% topical but not only is it more expensive, but it also displays no significant increase in hair/cm and can lead to more side effects and risk. Although the side effects of KX are very low to begin with. Reported side effects remain minimal, consisting mostly of localized skin irritation, which is common with any topical solution containing alcohol or propylene glycol carriers. There is no evidence of the systemic hormonal issues which is one of the main sides of other DHT blockers.
WHAT IS RU-58841? RU58841 is a topical androgen receptor antagonist developed in the mid-1990’s to combat androgenic alopecia by preventing DHT from having its effects. As an androgen receptor antagonist, RU58841 blocks the androgen receptors on cell surfaces for the hormone DHT, preventing DHT from exerting its effects.
STUDIES (Now the MAJOR issue with RU studies is that most of them are on animals (things like rats, hamsters, and @batluvr158). When the topical was originally made in the 90’s, the producers suddenly dropped the product after funding issues leaving many of the test unpublished. What I am going to show are the studies that I could find. There might be more out there.)
Study 1 In an early study using an intact hamster flank-organ model, topical RU58841 showed strong local antiandrogen activity with minimal evidence of systemic spillover at low doses. When applied topically at doses up to 100 µg/animal, RU58841 reduced flank-organ area in a dose-dependent manner while showing no effect on the opposite flank organ, no meaningful change in serum testosterone, and no detectable antiandrogenic effects on sex organs (e.g., prostate/seminal vesicles). These findings supported the premise that RU58841 can act locally within a certain exposure window.
Study 2 In the hamster flank-organ study, when RU58841 was given subcutaneously (to mimic complete systemic exposure), systemic antiandrogen signals emerged at higher doses. At 300 to 1000 µg/animal, researchers observed reductions in prostate weight, indicating that systemic antiandrogenic effects can appear once exposure is high enough.
In intact rats, strong androgen-dependent effects were generally absent up to 1 mg/rat regardless of route of administration but became apparent at 10 mg/rat. Testosterone increases were noted only after subcutaneous dosing at the highest dose. This suggests that endocrine feedback can occur when systemic exposure is sufficiently high.
Study 3 The most hair-relevant preclinical data for RU58841 come from studies conducted in stump-tailed macaques. These primate species can develop an androgenic alopecia-like pattern with age, making it a useful, though still not perfect, translational model.
In these experiments, topical RU58841 was applied to an alopecic scalp and produced concentration-dependent improvements in visible hair parameters. A lower concentration (around 0.5%) did not yield impressive results, while a higher concentration (around 5%) produced the strongest regrowth signal over months of treatment.
Reported benefits included increased hair density and hair length. Beyond surface-level changes, the primate works also reported findings that align with meaningful follicle biology improvements, including support for dermal papilla cell growth and evidence consistent with vellus-to-terminal hair conversion.
One particularly notable mechanistic detail from the macaque work is that RU58841 appeared to prevent testosterone-related androgen receptor effects in the dermal papilla. This suggests testosterone may also contribute to miniaturization through androgen receptor signaling, with the androgen receptor acting as a “lynchpin” for both testosterone and DHT in susceptible follicles.
Even so, the macaque evidence has clear constraints. Sample sizes were small, dosing equivalence to human scalp use is uncertain (vehicle, skin barrier, follicular penetration), and the overall pattern suggests benefits are linked to continued treatment rather than a permanent reversal of the underlying process.
Study 4 (The few human trials) Two human clinical trials of RU58841 (under the name PSK‑3841) were registered and marked as completed in the early 2000’s. But the interesting thing is that the results from both of these studies have never been published, leaving a critical gap between promising preclinical work and real-world clinical decision-making.
The unpublished PSK-3841 trials:
Completion in 2002: A phase I study (ISRCTN49873657) tested a 5% PSK‑3841 solution twice daily for 4 weeks in about 30 men with androgenetic alopecia, with primary endpoints focused on safety, tolerability, endocrine profiles, plus pharmacokinetics.
Completion in 2003: A larger, multi‑centre, double‑blind trial (ISRCTN71083772) then treated 120 men for 6 months with 2.5% or 5% PSK‑3841 once daily versus vehicle, measuring total and anagen hair counts, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics.
Personal Takeaways The application will be the same as most topicals; apply, rub, dry.
Since the evidence and trials for humans are so limited, it is challenging to have an educated summary. One thing is for certain, and that is 5% is the best strength to use it.
But RU, RU, your side effects are the main concern. In a recent human experiment, it was found that RU does in fact leak into the blood stream and doesn’t stay local. Which this can also in turn lead to cardiovascular risk, now does this mean RU isn’t safe? NO. This was one test that have many others sprinting to debunk it, I just felt the need to address this study. Another article states, “RU58841 directly blocks the receptor from both hormones wherever it reaches sufficient concentration, a more direct suppression of androgen signaling. Approved drugs in RU58841's mechanism class (bicalutamide, enzalutamide) carry a documented, quantified rate of depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular effects in clinical trials, though those figures come from full therapeutic dosing in prostate cancer treatment, not from RU58841's own exposure levels, which haven't been measured against that benchmark.”
NOWWHOISTHEWINNER?
In short: KX-826. Now hold your horse you #teamRU members, this is a question on which one is better? And that would KX, yet RU has its points on why it should win. Again, put it into question-and-answer form. Which compound has the stronger evidence base overall, across efficacy, trial size, and regulatory scrutiny? KX-826, by a wide margin. Which compound has the stronger publicly demonstrated evidence specifically on whether it stays local after topical use? Right now, RU58841 does, precisely because someone finally measured it directly and published the result. So again, whether you are #teamKX or #teamRU, each side has its benefits. But in a guide like this there is no reason for me to not giving it to KX. It has the overall better evidence and trials that correlate directly to hair growth and DHT blockage.
But I’d be foolish not to add the pricing and source availability of the two. Since RU is not under any contract or house name, it is WAY cheaper and WAY easier to source. You can find RU everywhere and for cheap. Yet for KX, this is not the case. Right now, I believe the only way to get it is through the company themselves, meaning they control pricing. In which will lead to less sourcing opportunities and be a bigger hit on the wallet.
SO, if you are on a budget the winner will be RU-58841
Conclusion
RU benefitsKX benefits Lower price Better results Better sourcing More clinical trials More known Approved soon
Now that you know all of this, are you #KxFc or #RuFc? You already know I'm #KxFc
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
