Reaching the market is not the sole purpose of a clinical trial. Much to learn for them, no matter what happens.
look
We could say that we have hearing loss
if the drug works by the way we can take that madicine paying it. All depends if it is really effective or not. Keeps our experances high 
.Right, they are evaluating those items in the context of the injection, not as actual study outcomes. We know that IT injections are generally well-tolerated so the only issue here is whether there would be something weird about FX-322 (hopefully not!). The reality is that they will learn next-to-nothing about TEAEs with 9 treated individuals. Moreover, they won't learn anything meaningful about fx-322 and tinnitus (or hearing) given that the subjects will undergo a CI operation making it impossible to know whether the drug helped or hurt anything.
Yes they are! If FX does not work I would expect a cure to come from Decibel maybe 10-20 years who knows.
In 10 to 20 years I'll be dead and Decibel probably won't exist! Advances are made by learning from both failures and successes. I view research as an exponential, not linear, trajectory. I believe the path to be much shorter than 20 years.
Really good question. The lead indication, and what people from Frequency talk about, is noise induced hearing loss. So anything beyond that is speculation. That said, it makes sense that other causes of hair cell death that do not damage the supporting cells could be addressed by this approach. I haven't looked into hearing loss due to chemotherapy drugs or IV antibiotics enough to know the specific mechanism of hair cell loss, but if it does not damage the supporting cells I would think this approach would work.
Yes, this is what David Lucchino meant by "genetic hearing loss" in the radio interview.
Probably shouldn't stray too far off the Frequency topic, but there is a spectrum of genetic issues. If there is a fundamental genetic defect in hair cells, then creating more hair cells with the same defect will not restore hearing. There are other genetic issues that do present later in life. I think it really depends on the specific type of defect. There's a lot of information here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1434/. Should probably start a new thread to talk about this in more depth.
I am only saying that because they doing a lot they want to help people with genetic conditions also protect the ears. They have a lot on the table. A guy on forum was saying 3 years for a growth factor like shimbo from South Korea I can only hope 3 years!
Unfortunately I don't see this as news (unless there is something in the part of the article I can't see since I am not a subscriber). It is consistent with the interviews where folks from Frequency are saying "12 months" (down from 12 to 18 months from the beginning of the year) so it is likely a paraphrasing of that language. Hopefully we will get an official announcement or an entry into one of the trial registries soon. They seem to be on track though that impression largely comes from press releases - though I did post some evidence that they apparently restored hearing in mice prior to August 2016.
As far as I can tell from the slide in the picture in the newspaper article, it was measured 30 days after injection. Obviously Frequency knows the answer to this, and presumably so will we when the next paper is published.
Based on the paper from February, they will not.
That is actually a pretty likely comparison. I keep thinking people will be lined up for a cure to hearing loss -- that the demand will be overwhelming. But maybe not. Not everyone with vision loss opts to have laser eye surgery; it's quite possible that not everyone with hearing loss would opt to get it corrected, especially if the loss is mild.
Member
