Frequency Therapeutics — Hearing Loss Regeneration

Go home Piney.
Hold on - the top of this page says Tinnitus Talk. Otonomy has at least stated their drug has positively affected tinnitus. I've attempted to get in both companies' trials and now getting emails to try Otolith Labs' headband again. I'm also the guy who would tell people if something worked. I'm just wondering why more people aren't interested in Otonomy's trials. I appreciate the other replies on FX-322 as well and how it's been proven to increase volume of one's hearing.
 
So the headphones in the audiology booth were able to emit a more powerful signal?
I may be misreading the situation, but I might have something to add here. My audiologist mentioned something to the effect of people not hearing as well through headphones. I seemed to have some trouble hearing the tones at some frequencies there, so she inserted some probes into my ear to address that problem. I think this has something to do with the ear canal.
 
Hold on - the top of this page says Tinnitus Talk. Otonomy has at least stated their drug has positively affected tinnitus. I've attempted to get in both companies' trials and now getting emails to try Otolith Labs' headband again. I'm also the guy who would tell people if something worked. I'm just wondering why more people aren't interested in Otonomy's trials. I appreciate the other replies on FX-322 as well and how it's been proven to increase volume of one's hearing.
Otonomy has 4 different drugs. You are likely thinking of OTO-313 which so far is for acute tinnitus only, hence why there isn't nearly as much interest on the forum.

OTO-413 repairs synapses though which is more exciting.
 
Hold on - the top of this page says Tinnitus Talk. Otonomy has at least stated their drug has positively affected tinnitus. I've attempted to get in both companies' trials and now getting emails to try Otolith Labs' headband again. I'm also the guy who would tell people if something worked. I'm just wondering why more people aren't interested in Otonomy's trials. I appreciate the other replies on FX-322 as well and how it's been proven to increase volume of one's hearing.
Carl LeBel also stated that they had anecdotal reports of FX-322 improving people's tinnitus from Phase 1/2 though. They don't have any 'official' data on this yet as they were not measuring this as part of the Phase 1/2 trial.
 
This is the case. I was able to repeat them all without any problem. I still have tinnitus. So the word scores are related to hearing loss or is it about something else?
I have high frequency hearing loss but my word score is almost perfect. You would need an audiogram to diagnose your hearing loss which they should have also done.
 
I have high frequency hearing loss but my word score is almost perfect. You would need an audiogram to diagnose your hearing loss which they should have also done.
I had one but up to 8 kHz (if I'm not talking nonsense). And in it I had a constant line so I guess I have no hearing loss.
 
I had one but up to 8 kHz (if I'm not talking nonsense). And in it I had a constant line so I guess I have no hearing loss.
You probably do in the extended range (8 kHz - 16 kHz). Also, the standard audiogram tests a whole 7 to 11 frequencies (depending on the test), out of the range of thousands of frequencies we're capable of hearing (or not hearing) in that range. So, it's a really vague test. All it really tells the audiologist is whether or not you need a hearing aid.
 
All it really tells the audiologist is whether or not you need a hearing aid.
Exactly. The audiogram was never put together to diagnose or treat. It was designed as measure by which audiologists can determine how much hearing aids they're able to sell.
 
Also, the standard audiogram tests a whole 7 to 11 frequencies (depending on the test), out of the range of thousands of frequencies we're capable of hearing (or not hearing) in that range.
Curiously, would sweeping tests be effective measures? Say instead of the typical "here is X frequency and Y volume, press button when you hear it", why not sweep through ranges at different volumes and then have the patient press the button when they experience difficulty or notice a chance.

The only roadblocks I can think of is that of reaction time and/or the possibility the sweeping may progress too quickly for you to isolate a bad zone.
 
As hard as measuring how much and in what frequencies people have their hearing deficits, at the end of the day it's not going to matter as long as there is a really good cure/delivery system.

- "Hey doc, I feel that my hearing isn't what it used to be / I have tinnitus / I have problem hearing speech in noise"
- "If you say so! Here's a shot.

:D
 
Curiously, would sweeping tests be effective measures? Say instead of the typical "here is X frequency and Y volume, press button when you hear it", why not sweep through ranges at different volumes and then have the patient press the button when they experience difficulty or notice a chance.

The only roadblocks I can think of is that of reaction time and/or the possibility the sweeping may progress too quickly for you to isolate a bad zone.
I think you hit the nail on the head as to why sweeping tests won't work.

What might make more sense in my opinion is to first make the audiogram simply more granular. So, instead of having the most common: 250 Hz - 500 Hz - 1000 Hz - 2000 Hz - 4000 Hz - 6000 Hz - 8000 Hz, add detail to areas where consonants and vowels are clustered, this would help align the audiogram with word deficiencies.

8dcad0fff20f0c3ba7ce72b088391d8d.jpg


So perhaps we expand it to: 250 Hz, 300 Hz, 400 Hz, 500 Hz, 750 Hz, 1000 Hz, 1200 Hz, 1500 Hz, 1800 Hz, 2000 Hz, 2200 Hz, 3000 Hz, 4000 Hz, 5000 Hz, 6000 Hz, 8000 Hz, 10 kHz, 12 kHz, 14 kHz, 16 kHz.

From there, I don't know if it exists, but I wonder if there is a way to reproduce parts of speech as an audiogram. FOR example, an audiogram that tests how well I can hear the "f" sound, or "t" sound, or "r" sound. If I understand how the cochlea functions correctly, this would also give clinicians a better idea of specific ranges of deficit.

Once regenerative medicines are on the market, these upgrades may help doctors also understand where recovery is taking place, and if more doses are needed of FX-322. So, for example, if my baseline word score was 25/50, and I had deficits in the 2200 Hz - 8000 Hz range, and deficits hearing "k", "t", "f", "sh", it might help the doctor know what the first series of dosages might look like.

Then, on a return visit, if my word score was 40/50, which is good, but has room for improvement. A second pass at this advanced audiogram might show that I still have deficits between 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz, and with "k" and "t" letter sounds. Again, this would help the doctor target the appropriate dosage level.
 
As hard as measuring how much and in what frequencies people have their hearing deficits, at the end of the day it's not going to matter as long as there is a really good cure/delivery system.

- "Hey doc, I feel that my hearing isn't what it used to be / I have tinnitus / I have problem hearing speech in noise"
- "If you say so! Here's a shot.

:D
Yeah, my guess is that early on it will be a shotgun approach like we see with Prednisone (which seems to be completely dependent on the doctor) and the doctors will just have people come in for 4 rounds of treatment and see what happens. I don't think you can 'over-improve' hearing at this point.
 
As hard as measuring how much and in what frequencies people have their hearing deficits, at the end of the day it's not going to matter as long as there is a really good cure/delivery system.

- "Hey doc, I feel that my hearing isn't what it used to be / I have tinnitus / I have problem hearing speech in noise"
- "If you say so! Here's a shot.

:D
They better. I don't want to be bounced around and spend money on tests just to try to prove stuff to them, and even then have them say I don't need it.

But like others have said, all that matters is money. If they can pocket that sweet money from pushing FX-322, they better be jumping at the opportunity to inject everyone.
 
Yeah, my guess is that early on it will be a shotgun approach like we see with Prednisone (which seems to be completely dependent on the doctor) and the doctors will just have people come in for 4 rounds of treatment and see what happens. I don't think you can 'over-improve' hearing at this point.
If FX-322 could over improve hearing, I'd get so many shots that by the end of 90 days I'd be screaming out my window for the ants at end of the block to shut the f#$% up and love every second of it.
 
What if you got tinnitus/hyperacusis from noise exposure but have no measurable hearing loss up to 8 kHz (and no problem with frequencies even higher than that) and then also have no problems hearing people in loud environments (synapses)?

Does my brain react to this hearing loss by amplifying certain frequencies (like sound distortions)?
 
What if you got tinnitus/hyperacusis from noise exposure but have no measurable hearing loss up to 8 kHz (and no problem with frequencies even higher than that) and then also have no problems hearing people in loud environments (synapses)?

Does my brain react to this hearing loss by amplifying certain frequencies (like sound distortions)?
This is the theory that I agree with. We have a good chance that FX-322 should resolve our hyperacusis issues even if our audiograms look normal if we can restore the hair cells.
 
What if you got tinnitus/hyperacusis from noise exposure but have no measurable hearing loss up to 8 kHz (and no problem with frequencies even higher than that) and then also have no problems hearing people in loud environments (synapses)?

Does my brain react to this hearing loss by amplifying certain frequencies (like sound distortions)?
Same boat as you - I think we must have some hearing loss regardless.
 
What if you got tinnitus/hyperacusis from noise exposure but have no measurable hearing loss up to 8 kHz (and no problem with frequencies even higher than that) and then also have no problems hearing people in loud environments (synapses)?

Does my brain react to this hearing loss by amplifying certain frequencies (like sound distortions)?
How do you know your high frequencies (higher than 8 kHz) are normal?
 
What if you got tinnitus/hyperacusis from noise exposure but have no measurable hearing loss up to 8 kHz (and no problem with frequencies even higher than that) and then also have no problems hearing people in loud environments (synapses)?

Does my brain react to this hearing loss by amplifying certain frequencies (like sound distortions)?
How Does Loud Noise Cause Hearing Loss?

"Up to 30% to 50% of hair cells can be damaged or destroyed before changes in your hearing can be measured by a hearing test"
 
How Does Loud Noise Cause Hearing Loss?

"Up to 30% to 50% of hair cells can be damaged or destroyed before changes in your hearing can be measured by a hearing test"
It's also worth noting that you can lose up to 90% of your synapses and still score perfectly within the normal range on an audiogram, according to Liberman.
 
It's also worth noting that you can lose up to 90% of your synapses and still score perfectly within the normal range on an audiogram, according to Liberman.
Also one of the often missed points of Liberman's research is that different types of noise damage cause different structural damage.

In his methodology section for one of his papers (the one you're taking about where he depleted 90% of synapses but left all OHC intact) he says that this is under a very specific noise exposure condition (I don't remember exactly but it was something like a broadband 8 kHz freq). And that is was a very reliable way to induce widespread synaptopathy without hair cell loss.

It would be impossible to catalogue every single permutation of noise exposure available, so anyone who's asking themselves "I likely have noise-induced tinnitus but I don't know what structure is damaged. Is there a way to know based off the fact that it's noise damage alone?"

- and the answer is no, there's really no way to simply extrapolate that noise damage automatically equals OHC death, or automatically equals synaptopathy.

As an aside I read a paper by a researcher quite a while ago - who has since passed away - who was doing research on the same principle and found that yes, not all noise exposures are created equal and some frequencies had some pretty stark differences in what structures got demolished.

Like one broadband frequency left the IHC completed untouched and the other did some moderate damage.
 
People who have hearing damage from noise, is the damage immediate?
Not necessarily. My last acoustic trauma didn't set in until the day after.

It was as if all of a sudden out of nowhere my ears locked up and everything became distorted. I felt perfectly fine waking up, even made breakfast and coffee, then by noon it was hell on earth and I had no idea what was going on.
 
How Does Loud Noise Cause Hearing Loss?

"Up to 30% to 50% of hair cells can be damaged or destroyed before changes in your hearing can be measured by a hearing test"
And I imagine this doesn't take into account hair cells responsible for UHF, given that a normal audiogram only measures up to 8 kHz. The real percentage then must be much higher.
 
How Does Loud Noise Cause Hearing Loss?

"Up to 30% to 50% of hair cells can be damaged or destroyed before changes in your hearing can be measured by a hearing test"
Right, the audiogram--I know how flawed it is. But I'm talking about real life too. Can you really lose 30-50% of your hair cells before you start to lose any hearing (as in minor or major hearing loss that affects your daily life)?
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now