Hair-Loss Research Advances: What the New Trials Mean for Women

On September 28, 2026, Dermatology Times reported clinical-development updates for topical clascoterone from Cosmo Pharmaceuticals and the extended-release oral minoxidil candidate VDPHL01 from Veradermics. Its bulletin also covered PP405 from Pelage Pharmaceuticals, a topical candidate intended to reactivate dormant hair follicles.

What is the established approach to women’s hair thinning?

For women, the existing clinical framework starts with identifying the cause of hair loss. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommends a dermatologist’s assessment to distinguish female pattern hair loss from other conditions.

The AAD describes female pattern hair loss as hereditary and more common after menopause. It notes that hormones may play a role. It also identifies minoxidil as its most-recommended treatment for female pattern hair loss and says approved products are available.

That framework puts diagnosis before treatment selection. It also leaves room for understanding the menopause transition without treating a life stage as a diagnosis in itself.

The research updates broaden the approaches under investigation: local androgen-receptor inhibition, an extended-release formulation of minoxidil and an attempt to reactivate dormant follicles. The shift is in the range of strategies being tested, rather than a replacement of that diagnosis-led approach.

What did the hair-loss trials report?

The three programs are at different stages of development. Dermatology Times reported phase 3 results for clascoterone and VDPHL01, while the PP405 findings highlighted in secondary coverage came from a phase 2a study. Reading them separately gives a clearer picture than grouping them as equivalent advances.

What were the clascoterone findings?

• The approach: Dermatology Times described Cosmo Pharmaceuticals’ clascoterone 5% topical solution as a locally acting androgen-receptor inhibitor. This is the local androgen-signalling approach among the three programs covered.
• The studies: The phase 3 SCALP-1 and SCALP-2 trials enrolled 1,465 men across 51 sites in the United States and Europe. According to Dermatology Times, the company reported that both trials met their primary endpoint.
• The hair-count results: The company reported relative improvements in target-area hair count versus vehicle of 539% in SCALP-1 and 168% in SCALP-2. These are relative comparisons with vehicle. They do not mean participants grew 539% or 168% more hair overall.
• The safety report: Dermatology Times reported that the company described safety as comparable to vehicle through 12 months. The company also reported no signal of systemic hormonal effects.
• The next step: The September coverage said Cosmo planned an FDA filing for early 2027. A planned filing is a regulatory milestone the company intends to pursue, not an approval or a guarantee of one.

The striking percentages need their comparison attached whenever they are repeated. “Relative improvement versus vehicle” is part of the finding, not a technical detail that can be removed from a headline. Keeping that wording intact prevents a trial result from becoming a much larger claim about overall hair growth.

What were the VDPHL01 findings?

• The approach: VDPHL01 is an extended-release oral minoxidil product being developed for pattern hair loss. Dermatology Times reported results from a 519-patient trial in men.
• The hair-count results: At month six, the mean increase in non-vellus hair count was 30.3 hairs/cm² in the once-daily study group. It was 33.0 hairs/cm² in the twice-daily study group, compared with 7.3 hairs/cm² with placebo. These describe the trial groups, not a treatment schedule for readers.
• The trial outcomes: Dermatology Times reported that the study met its primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse-event rates were reported as similar to placebo.
• The women’s program: According to the same report, a registration-directed trial in women was expected to report topline data in the first half of 2027.

Here the reported measurement is a mean change in hair count within a defined area. That gives the result a different form from clascoterone’s relative comparison with vehicle. The useful reading is the change reported for each study group alongside its comparator, rather than an isolated number presented as a promise of regrowth.

What were the PP405 findings?

• The approach: Dermatology Times described PP405 as a regenerative approach intended to reactivate dormant hair follicles. That describes the candidate’s intended action.
• The study: Secondary coverage of Pelage Pharmaceuticals’ phase 2a study reported participation by 78 men and women with androgenetic alopecia.
• The highlighted result: At week eight, 31% of treated men in a subgroup with more advanced hair loss had a greater-than-20% increase in hair density. The corresponding figure in the placebo group was 0%, according to that coverage.
• The development plan: Dermatology Times reported that phase 3 was planned for 2026. The report described a plan for the next stage, rather than confirming that the later-stage study had begun.

For this program, the headline number is the proportion of a subgroup reaching a specified density response. It is not an average hair-count change. The wording matters because the number describes both who was assessed and what counted as a response.

How directly does this evidence apply to midlife women?

The central evidence gap sits in the study populations. Clascoterone and VDPHL01’s cited phase 3 results were reported in men. PP405’s study included women, but its highlighted efficacy finding concerned a subgroup of men. Together, these reports do not establish effectiveness for female pattern hair loss or thinning specifically associated with menopause.

The safety findings also belong to the reported trial settings. A company report of no systemic hormonal safety signal is not proof that systemic effects are impossible. Reported adverse-event rates similar to placebo likewise do not establish suitability for an individual woman.

Nor do these figures support a ranking of the candidates. Relative target-area hair-count improvements, mean hair-count changes and a subgroup’s density response answer different research questions. Treating their numerical size as a competition would lose those distinctions.

For readers, the practical dividing line is between a development update and evidence that can support a personal care decision. A promising mechanism explains why researchers are studying a candidate. The relevant population and outcomes determine how far the reported findings reach.

What remains useful in a dermatology conversation now?

The AAD’s guidance provides a practical foundation while these development programs continue. It places the cause of thinning at the centre of assessment, rather than starting with whichever treatment has attracted attention.

• Clarifying the type of hair loss: The AAD recommends dermatologist assessment to determine whether thinning is female pattern hair loss or another condition. That distinction connects a treatment discussion to the problem actually being assessed.
• Considering underlying causes when indicated: The AAD lists disease and vitamin deficiency among possible contributors. It also names hormone imbalance and infection. A dermatologist may recommend blood tests or a scalp biopsy when the assessment suggests an underlying cause.
• Separating familiar ingredients from new products: The AAD’s guidance on established minoxidil treatment should not be read as an endorsement of investigational VDPHL01. The extended-release oral candidate is a distinct product under study. Suitability for existing options is a matter for qualified care.
• Keeping product claims separate from assessment: Nothing in these updates provides a reason to assume that thinning calls for a supplement or a hormonal treatment. The more useful question is whether a proposed option matches the identified condition and the evidence available for that person.

Questions about hair and appearance in midlife deserve careful answers without becoming a product search by default. Taking a concern seriously does not require choosing the newest candidate. It means keeping the clinical question clear enough that the research can be interpreted in relation to it.

How might hair-loss care change next?

These programs point toward a broader range of approaches to pattern hair loss, with women-specific findings needed to determine which may earn a place alongside established care.

How Refemina helps

Hair-loss trial news can become another reason to buy a supplement or seek a hormonal answer; Refemina grounds its coverage in research rather than product-led claims. Its editorial work helps women separate promising results from treatment claims while placing hair concerns within a broader account of menopause, appearance and confidence.

Explore Resources

Sources

1. Breakout Bulletin: September 21-25
2. Pelage Pharmaceuticals (company)
3. www.aad.org › public › diseasesThinning hair and hair loss: Could it be female pattern hair ...
4. Hair loss: Diagnosis and treatment - American Academy of ...