RapidLash is a cosmetic product claiming to grow lashes. Like many companies with their version of lash-growing products, RapidLash wants to compete with Allergan’s expensive prescription-only version called Latisse ($160 for 0.1 ounce). Most of these Latisse-wannabes are nothing more than colorless liquid eyeliners with some peptides thrown in that have no research showing they can affect hair growth. RapidLash stands apart not only because it costs considerably less than Latisse but it does, at least in theory, work to grow lashes.

A serious distinction between Latisse and RapidLash is that Latisse is a prescription-only drug. Therefore, it is subjected by the FDA to intense scrutiny, proof of safety, and proof of efficacy. Because RapidLash is a cosmetic, it is not subject to these same requirements. Rocasuba, the company that distributes RapidLash, has done some amount of their own testing, but it pales in comparison to the level of testing Latisse went through to prove what it can and can’t do and what risks accompany its benefits.

Claims for RapidLash are carefully worded so they remain strictly cosmetic and not like a drug but here’s the difference: RapidLash does contain an ingredient that quite possibly allows it to work like Latisse. The active ingredient in Latisse is bimatoprost. Bimatoprost is the active ingredient in the prescription medication Lumigan used to treat glaucoma. Patients with glaucoma who used Lumigan noticed their eyelashes really grew and got darker. Allergan owns Lumigan and so they took advantage of this side effect and obtained FDA approval to sell this active ingredient as a lash growing treatment.

RapidLash contains an ingredient called isopropyl cloprostenate, which has some distant molecular similarities to bimatoprost. While there is no published research showing isopropyl cloprostenate can grow lashes, its relation to bimatoprost clearly exists. This association is the likely explanation behind RapidLash’s runaway success. A quick Google search produces thousands of online “fans” all attesting to its efficacy.

Given there is evidence that RapidLash could work similarly to Latisse, it is therefore possible that the same side effects associated with Latisse could occur when using RapidLash as well. Bimatoprost can cause irritation, redness, a bluish skin discoloration around the eye that could be permanent, and a permanent change in eye color among other potential problems anyone considering Latisse should be told about. The company selling RapidLash says they have no research or evidence showing these risks exist for their product, but their research is not reviewed by the FDA nor are they required to perform the mandatory safety and efficacy tests for drugs required by federal law. However, it is reassuring that the company has made the efforts to ensure the safety of RapidLash, and they willingly provided these documents to us.

So should you consider trying RapidLash for longer lashes and fuller eyebrows? The Cosmetics Cop Team is leaving this product unrated and not making a conclusion one way or the other. There just isn’t enough substantiated information to make a clear recommendation. For your own eye health, if you do decide to try RapidLash, or Latisse for that matter, watch for any negative side effects as mentioned above and it never hurts to check with your doctor first. Bottom line: RapidLash should work, at least in theory, to produce the results you want.

I recently attended a Webinar (online seminar) put on by Allergan, the pharmaceutical company behind the upcoming lash-enhancement prescription product Latisse. As those who read my Lash Wars blog entry know, Latisse is poised to become the hot lash product women nationwide will be clamoring for.

There is no doubt Latisse will work to make eyelashes longer, thicker, and darker, with maximum results visible after 4 months of daily treatment. The Webinar was full of impressive before-and-after pictures from the 278 women who participated in the clinical trials that led to FDA approval of Latisse for eyelash growth. I imagine anyone watching the Webinar and bemoaning the state of their small or sparse lashes is eagerly awaiting this product—I know I would be and as someone who had used the Jan Marini version that was confiscated by the FDA I can vouch for how impressive the active ingredient can be!!!

Allergan certainly isn’t taking the sorry state of the U.S. economy into account—a 30-day supply of Latisse will set consumers back $120. With ongoing use, you’re looking at spending over $1,400.00 per year to maintain impressive lashes. Ouch! While some women won’t bat an eye at the cost, I’m sure others will pause before contacting their physician about a prescription for Latisse (it’s shipping now and expected to be widely available by the end of March). I was willing to spend that much on a 10-year supply when I bought up all the Marini product I could after it was no longer available.

Granted, applying an already excellent mascaras to lashes that have been made longer and thicker will produce greater results, but when is enough enough? Considering the average drugstore mascara we rate highly costs around $8 and lasts for 3-4 months, you’re spending a minute fraction compared to using Latisse and renewing your prescription every month and using Latisse doesn’t mean you will no longer want to use mascara. And that’s what Allergan said during the Webinar: 90% of the women involved with the clinical trials for Latisse reported that they will still use mascara even though their lashes were now longer, darker, and thicker. The folks at Allergan were quick to point out that Latisse is not trying to compete with the $1 billion + mascara industry (U.S. sales figure). Rather, Latisse improves the “lash canvas” and mascara is the “paint”. I like that analogy, but it shouldn’t have to cost this much to improve your lash “canvas”!

To further put the price issue into perspective, consider that Lumigan, the anti-glaucoma eye drops that contain the same active ingredient (bimatoprost) as Latisse, costs around $81 per bottle. Since glaucoma is a medical condition, these prescription eye drops are likely covered by most health insurance plans. Not Latisse. I can’t imagine the health insurance provider that is going to deem longer, thicker eyelashes as “medically necessary”! Maybe you should ask your ophthalmologist if you can just use a glaucoma medication which would last far long and be far cheaper. Okay just teasing, well sort of.

All of this comes down to how much you’re willing to pay for improved eyelashes—if using an excellent mascara can get you close to the results you want (and many of them can) you have to come to the conclusion that a prescription for Latisse isn’t worth the hit to your beauty budget. But expect to be very, very tempted to give it a try, I know I was!