This is the wrong thread to start getting into hyperacusis-related stuff, but coming from a fellow sufferer, if you're looking for research/evidence about the pathology behind hyperacusis, I wouldn't bother with neurologists, who are arguably just as much behind the curve as ENTs and audiologists. At the end of the day they're all practitioners, not researchers who are at the forefront of the relevant science. Check out the work being done by Paul Fuchs, Charles Liberman and others and their respective lab teams. The models they have developed for hyperacusis over the last few years are light years ahead of what we had 5 years ago.
Having said all this, I want to address the basic premise of your initial question, which is whether FX-322 will help those of us with hyperacusis. Your 8th cranial nerve argument aside, the bottom line is that we won't know for sure until we start to see people trialing the drug for this purpose. There are anecdotal cases of people receiving cochlea implants and seeing their hyperacusis improve, suggesting then that the issue is, at a very basic level, one of input i.e. if you restore input you may be able to resolve hyperacusis.
However, how this anecdotal evidence matches up with some of the latest hyperacusis models, such as the decrease and increase in the numbers of presynaptic ribbons in type 1 and type II afferents respectively and/or upregulation of purinergic receptors due to ATP leakage of OHCs is not clear. It's possible that the restoration of input, whether biological or mechanical, has some kind of affect on cell signalling and the underlying mechanisms of hyperacusis.
The general consensus here seems to be that FX-322 could well treat loudness hyperacusis, but pain hyperacusis and it's associated symptoms (such as trigeminal neuralgia, which could be more of a middle-ear than inner-ear issue) is anyone's guess.
@100Hz has developed some
great models that tie together a lot of the latest research and how some of these drugs may, potentially, help us.