If they can optimize the delivery method to target all frequencies in the ear, FX-322 will be a game-changer to all those who have hearing loss in all frequencies.
I do hope by targeting all frequencies can help get rid of tinnitus, pain and loudness hyperacusis.
I agree with you about improving and optimising the delivery method. What we have seen to date with the results doesn't necessarily tell us the full picture. Although FX-322 has delivered improvements to date, I think that we have only seen a small improvement due to the small size of the dose used in the inaugural trial.
Frequency Therapeutics have discovered in the lab that their treatment works throughout the whole ear. Therefore we now know that FX-322 isn't the problem, but rather the reason we haven't seen more extensive growth in ears is to do with the dosing factors.
Therefore I think that there are three things that should be noted about the dosing of FX-322:
1. We have only seen the benefits of one dose of FX-322 in people. The results from this one dose have been nothing short of remarkable, especially with the gains seen in all patients (both those deemed to be statistically insignificant and those deemed statistically significant).
2. If the evidence and research is true which suggests doing multiple doses, spread out a week apart to achieve better results, I think there will be better outcomes. This could include not only a larger improvement in decibels but also increased word recognition scores too.
My hypothesis (I could be completely wrong) is that those who had worse improvement in the inaugural trial (ie: those with statistically insignificant improvement) were the people with the worse hearing losses. Therefore I believe that based off of how FX-322 operates (by targeting the stuffed cells till it has been all used), more of the medicine would have had to get used in the very high frequencies with the higher hearing losses. This in turn has led to the lower word recognition improvement and the no measured decibel improvement, because their gain was not widespread enough to demonstrate benefit.
Therefore I think that more dosing does seem like a highly likely method to improve the outcomes from treatment with FX-322. This is because the methodology does indicate that this will lead to a better outcome.
3. Frequency Therapeutics needs to redesign the dose in order to deliver FX-322 to all areas of the cochlear. It is already known that Frequency Therapeutics is redesigning the delivery method and/or reformulating the dose of FX-322 in order to make it work better.
It is inevitable that this will happen, as from what we know Frequency Therapeutics was hiring someone to work through this. Furthermore we know that the issue is not with FX-322 but rather it is with getting the medicine to all parts in the ear. We have seen FX-322 provide complete regrowth in a lab setting and as a result there is no real reason why this cannot be replicated in an ear. Therefore I reckon that this is an excellent area to focus on in order to get improved benefit from FX-322 in terms of treatment.
Yes, I was shocked too that they said 71% increase is not statistically significant. 71% is a lot but maybe their terminology of statistically significant for hearing is different to what we think is statistically significant.
I asked someone I know well who works as a data analyst why there could be a large percentage increase (like the one you referred to) and he indicated that there tends to be a number of mathematical rules around this that he said can be complicated. He said that there was no real point in going into the nuts and bolts of it all. Basically he said that the reason it wasn't classified as statistically significant is probably solely due to a technical reason, like complying with the rules of statistics.
He thinks Frequency Therapeutics has probably been mandated to report results in this way. If Frequency Therapeutics doesn't comply with these rules, it could lead to them getting in trouble for delivering misleading and wrong info.
He suggested to look at the data from a real world perspective and interpret it accordingly. As a result he hinted that if you see something which looks like it is a good gain or good improvement for what it is then treat it as such and actually ignore what was reported.
So I agree with you that 71% is a large improvement, significant and also a good result.