We know from the Phase 1/2 that the brain readjusts to the newly created cells in those with SNHL and processes the new auditory signals. We also know from a few anecdotes that tinnitus may improve from the creation of the same cells. Two examples, in my opinion, of the brains ability to adapt in a positive way to changes in the auditory system.
I hope this does not mean bad news.
Being a founder doesn't mean you have a managing position. Was he on that page before? I don't remember seeing him.
That's a very interesting field of research. Modeling the workings of the brain by computers!
Direct perception:
From what I can tell, this is the future as it pertains to neurology and understanding how this amazingly complex organ functions. There is still so much that is unknown about it despite us living in the 21st century. I'd really like to see some sort of renaissance in this field as both technology and medical research continues to progress.
Regarding Radial, this is the academic article that sticks out the most:
Interesting research. I should have clarified, the flaw is really in how doctors/patients think about the audiogram, and what it actually measures. For example, audiologists and patients seem to consider it the "gold standard" for hearing. How many people on here and on other hearing loss forums/communities say, "The doctor says my hearing is great/normal because all the 7 points on my audiogram are above the 20 dB horizon! Yet, I have screaming tinnitus, hyperacusis, distortions, and can't hear shit in a noisy room!" Also, the audiogram doesn't really give enough of a picture of the state of the patients condition. As discussed earlier in this thread, the specific pure tones used are really measuring the edge of octaves, but not necessarily where parts of speech exist. It also maxes out today at 8 kHz, unless you're lucky enough to find an audiologist that will go to 16 kHz. It also only really measures OHC performance, yet IHC pay a pretty important role in understanding speech, music, etc.
I assume this follows from the fact that oral doses would lead the drug to become systemic, which then there's no telling what it might trigger.
Do you think this could also be a potential solution for those who are likely to have some extent of hearing damage that is not visible on audiograms?
Extensive pharmacokinetic studies are always part of pre-clinical work before any Phase 1 for any drug. They know how much and at what rate it diffuses into the bloodstream from the cochlea.
Based on what they're communicating so far, administration of FX-322 can "fit" within the current treatment paradigm. I think in the first "phase" of FX-322 being a commercial product, there simply won't be the industry-wide lift to adopt new testing methods to better understand/measure a patient's hearing loss; in fact, what may be needed doesn't exist. So, I think in the first "phase", Frequency Therapeutics needs to own communicating the method by which an audiologist/ENT take the current "standard" measures, convert them to a chart of some type to tell them how much FX-322 to dose someone over a period of time, and finally how to measure improvements afterwards using those "standard" measures today.
Ah, okay. My issue is that the current treatment paradigm doesn't seem to do much for those who have hidden hearing loss, since as you've mentioned doctors are always quick to tell their patients that they have "normal" or even "perfect" hearing when there's absolutely no way they know that for sure. I can't imagine professionals will be jumping to let patients get a shot of FX-322 when they can't find a discernible need for it, particularly as far as insurance goes.
I like your math. I think we should still consider 1 injection group as potential TFI responders, even if it isn't a lot. The Phase 1/2 showed some kind of benefit.
This is exactly what I'm thinking through right now. How do they use data from word recognition, words-in-noise, audiogram, potential complaint of tinnitus, and convert that to a reliable dose schedule of FX-322?
Member
