Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy for hair loss has been a clinical staple in dermatology for over a decade, with an established evidence base and a consistent track record of results for androgenetic alopecia and other non-scarring hair loss conditions. With the emergence of GFC (Growth Factor Concentrate) as a more refined alternative, patients frequently ask how the two compare and which is the better choice. This post addresses that comparison honestly.
How PRP Works
PRP is produced by drawing the patient’s blood and centrifuging it to separate and concentrate the platelet-rich layer. This concentrated plasma — containing 3-5 times the normal platelet concentration — is then injected into the scalp at the sites of hair loss. Activated platelets release growth factors including PDGF, VEGF, EGF, and TGF-beta, which stimulate hair follicle activity, promote angiogenesis (new blood vessel formation), and extend the anagen phase of the hair cycle. The evidence for PRP in androgenetic alopecia is well-established: multiple controlled studies demonstrate improvements in hair density, diameter, and growth rate compared to placebo.
PRP vs GFC — The Key Differences
GFC takes the PRP process further by using a specialised kit to extract and concentrate only the growth factors themselves — without the surrounding plasma, red blood cells, or inflammatory mediators that are present in standard PRP. The theoretical advantages: a higher concentration of active growth factors, lower inflammatory potential (less post-injection scalp soreness), and potentially more consistent results due to the standardised extraction process rather than the variable platelet concentration of manual PRP preparation. Clinical data comparing the two directly is limited but generally favours GFC for hair density outcomes, with both treatments producing meaningful results.
Which to Choose
For patients where GFC is available — as it is at our clinic — we generally prefer it as the first-line biological therapy for hair loss due to its more refined preparation and lower post-procedure discomfort. PRP remains an excellent, evidence-based option and is appropriate where GFC is not available or where cost is a consideration. Both require a course of 3 sessions and ongoing maintenance. Neither is a standalone solution for androgenetic alopecia without concurrent medical management.
Book a consultation: wa.me/919381218003
— Dr. Nishita Ranka | Consultant Dermatologist | Dr. Nishita’s Clinic for Skin, Hair & Aesthetics, Hyderabad
