Background and Scientific Context

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been widely used in dermatology and trichology as a procedural approach in patients presenting with androgenetic alopecia. PRP is derived from autologous blood and contains a concentrated platelet fraction that releases multiple bioactive mediators upon activation. Despite its widespread adoption, PRP outcomes in clinical practice are known to vary due to differences in preparation techniques, platelet concentration, injection protocols, and individual patient biology.
 In parallel, formulation-based approaches delivered through standardized protocols have gained attention for their consistency in composition and administration. Comparative clinical evaluations provide an opportunity to document hair and scalp parameters observed with different procedural approaches under routine practice conditions. This study presents descriptive clinical documentation of patients with androgenetic alopecia receiving either PRP or QR678, without drawing conclusions regarding relative effectiveness or therapeutic benefit.

Study Design and Methodology

The study was conducted as a prospective, comparative clinical evaluation involving male and female patients diagnosed with androgenetic alopecia based on established clinical classification systems. Participants were enrolled following predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and were allocated into two procedural groups.

One group received PRP administered via intradermal scalp injections following standard clinical protocols, which included autologous blood collection and centrifugation prior to administration. The second group received QR678 via localized intradermal scalp application at predefined intervals. All procedures were performed under dermatological supervision.

The study followed an open-label design and did not include randomization, placebo control, or blinding. Baseline assessments were conducted prior to initiation of either procedure, with follow-up evaluations performed at scheduled intervals over the observation period.

The objective of the study was to document hair and scalp parameters observed during the use of two different procedural approaches in routine clinical practice.

Assessment Parameters

Clinical documentation was performed using standardized assessment tools commonly employed in hair disorder evaluation, including:

• Hair pull testing to record active hair shedding at the time of examination
• Trichoscopic and videomicroscopic evaluation to document hair density, follicular distribution, and hair shaft characteristics
• Global photographic assessment to visually record scalp appearance across defined regions
• Patient-reported observations captured during structured clinical interactions

These parameters were recorded descriptively and used for within-group longitudinal documentation across study visits.

Observational Findings

Across successive evaluations, clinicians documented changes noted in hair shedding patterns, scalp appearance, and hair shaft characteristics within each procedural group. Observations were recorded without assigning causality to either PRP or QR678 and without attributing observed changes to procedural efficacy.

Trichoscopic and photographic records were used to support visual comparison of hair and scalp parameters over time within individual patients. Variability in observations was noted across participants, reflecting known differences in biological response, hair cycle phases, and clinical presentation.

Patient-reported observations reflected individual perceptions of hair appearance and shedding during the observation period. These reports were recorded descriptively and were not interpreted as indicators of comparative benefit or outcome.

Procedural and Tolerability Observations

Both procedures were carried out under routine clinical conditions. Tolerability observations were documented during and after each session.

PRP administration involved additional procedural steps related to blood collection and processing, which were noted as part of procedural documentation. QR678 administration did not require autologous blood collection. Reported observations across both groups were primarily localized and transient, including mild procedural discomfort associated with intradermal application.

No systemic adverse events were reported in either group during the observation period. No study discontinuations were attributed to safety-related concerns.

Scope, Limitations, and Research Relevance

The study is subject to limitations inherent to observational comparative evaluations, including lack of randomization, absence of blinding, and reliance on descriptive clinical documentation. Differences in PRP preparation protocols and individual patient biology further limit direct comparability.

The study does not establish therapeutic efficacy, superiority, or long-term outcomes for either procedural approach. Within these limitations, the paper contributes structured clinical documentation of hair and scalp parameters observed with PRP and QR678 under routine practice conditions.

The findings may serve as reference material for clinicians reviewing procedural characteristics and observational outcomes associated with different approaches to androgenetic alopecia management.