I'm fascinated by the credence given to press releases by people on this forum. The 18 months comes from Frequency's press releases. I'm sure it is a goal, and I hope it is met. In fact, there may be reasons (described below) to be cautiously optimistic, but they don't come from the marketing department. As an example of why I think caution is in order, consider this article from January 5, 2017
http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2017/...langer-aims-to-fight-hearing-loss-with-drugs/ where it says "Frequency hopes to enter human clinical trials in the next 18 months in patients with hearing loss, according to the spokeswoman." This is almost 2 months ago but they aren't talking about trials within 16 months now. It will be interesting to see if/when the timeline they give changes.
It's also the case that based on the paper in
Cell Reports we don't know whether the hair cells are functional. They have many properties of hair cells but that has been true in other cases. In this article (
http://www.livescience.com/57952-scientists-grow-hair-cells.html), Edge acknowledges this "These laboratory-grown hair cells appear to have many of the characteristics of actual inner and outer hair cells, although they might not be fully functional, Edge said."
So the cautions are 1) we don't yet know whether the hair cells are functional and additionally 2) the process is less effective for adults. From the paper "While the extent of expansion of Lgr5+ cells from adult mouse tissue was less than that from neonatal cells, the normally quiescent supporting cells from the adult mouse, rhesus, and human inner ear responded to the small-molecule cocktail used on neonatal tissue. However, additional molecules will likely be required to enhance the expansion of Lgr5+ cells from the adult cochlea."
There are, however, reasons to be (cautiously) optimistic. The paper was initially submitted on December 30, 2015. So the initial work was done in 2015. The revised paper was received on January 5, 2017. So revisions took about a year. What this means is that they have known at least some of these results for over a year and have surely been building on these results over that time. This makes it very likely that they know the answers to some of the questions we have. They may or may not be the answers that they or we would like, but they know more now than is in this paper. What will be interesting will be to see the next paper. How quickly will there be a second paper? Will they show that the hair cells are actually function? Will Frequency have the additional molecules needed to enhance the expansion of cells in the adult cochlea? Will they be able to demonstrate that injection of these molecules into a living mouse can restore noise damaged hearing? Assuming they get that far, will that work if the damage is "old"?
Additionally, based on my reading of regenerative medicine trials, assuming we get to trials (which in spite of the press releases isn't guaranteed yet) there may not need to be separate Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials. Unlike "normal" medicine where it makes sense to test for side effects in healthy volunteers, in regenerative medicine trials it doesn't make sense to regenerate things in healthy people so pure Phase 1 seem not to be done. Thus, my expectation would be that like the Genvec trial, we would see a small Phase 1/2 trial with the possibility of a separate Phase 2 or maybe even Phase 3 trial next. Another question about trials is how long they will need to be. Improvements in hearing should happen relatively quickly. The question would be how long the trials would need to be to address either safety concerns or the durability of any initial benefits.
Lastly, completely missing from the focus on "18 months" is the more immediate benefit. Assuming it is replicated by others, this approach immediately dramatically increases the number of hair cells that can be generated for research. This will speed tests of drugs, understanding of development, etc. This has the potential to be very beneficial for many labs working with hair cells. (I also don't know how Frequency's patent application(s) will affect anything.)
As an aside, it is interesting that the revised paper was received by the journal on January 5, 2017 and Frequency "went public" and announced their board of directors on, you guessed it, January 5, 2017 (
http://www.frequencytx.com/news-events/pr-01-05-2017.php). On Jan 5, they wouldn't have known with certainty that the paper would be published (it wasn't accepted until the 25th), but they would have had a good idea that it would be. Who knows whether they were related but interesting timing nonetheless.