Unlikely at all IMO, a lot of members here have been shot up with all sorts of stuff and noticed no improvements, and most people here can attest that time does nothing at all.Tinnitus could have improved with time or from help of a placebo.
Unlikely at all IMO, a lot of members here have been shot up with all sorts of stuff and noticed no improvements, and most people here can attest that time does nothing at all.Tinnitus could have improved with time or from help of a placebo.
There are people who see great improvements by chance, either with lower stress, better sleep, better diet, coincidence.Unlikely at all IMO, a lot of members here have been shot up with all sorts of stuff and noticed no improvements, and most people here can attest that time does nothing at all.
You are very wrong. MOST who get tinnitus habituate to it, it becomes a non-issue or it improves considerably over the first year or two.Unlikely at all IMO, a lot of members here have been shot up with all sorts of stuff and noticed no improvements, and most people here can attest that time does nothing at all.
Fair point. But only improving after taking the shot? That would be one hell of a coincidence.You are very wrong. MOST who get tinnitus habituate to it, it becomes a non-issue or it improves considerably over the first year or two.
This forum is not representative of the real world.
Imo you are stuck on "the drug barely works" without understanding *why* it would work differently in different people and just going population stats. Doubling word scores is not subtle.Yeah, but this is the first time you pulled out an actual rabbit.
Gotta be the bear. Those gains could be from a placebo or the drug. Tinnitus could have improved with time or from help of a placebo.
Probably more likely that the drug barely works and they improved a little, but I'm not sure I've learned much, being critical here.
It's all plausible, although I find it difficult to explain tinnitus changes given it was previously stable for two years. I know you're being bearish for the sake of us all not getting ahead of ourselves, but I think your gut might be telling you otherwise.Yeah, but this is the first time you pulled out an actual rabbit.
Gotta be the bear. Those gains could be from a placebo or the drug. Tinnitus could have improved with time or from help of a placebo.
Probably more likely that the drug barely works and they improved a little, but I'm not sure I've learned much, being critical here.
I disagree. The real world is often times pain and suffering.You are very wrong. MOST who get tinnitus habituate to it, it becomes a non-issue or it improves considerably over the first year or two.
This forum is not representative of the real world.
Well, my answer to this is that I do believe super responders are possible, but it's probably small for most true responders. I'm not sure what doubling has to do with this patient, as they improved by 10%.Imo you are stuck on "the drug barely works" without understanding *why* it would work differently in different people and just going population stats. Doubling word scores is not subtle.
At least consider this possibility: the drug targets IHCs first, but with either pristine IHCs or multiple doses, it would target OHCs.
If rapid multiple dosing diminished this effect, we have no idea how well it could work for OHCs, but even small gains could be improved with re-dosing at more reasonable intervals.
It's just not consistent to me to say doubling word scores in Phase 1 is not placebo or chance but the "drug barely works." The "why" of the data has to be answered first.
This person had hearing loss for over two years and he noticed his tinnitus to be 90% gone 3.5 months after the last FX-322 shot. I don't think this is a coincidence, I think FX-322 did something.Fair point. But only improving after taking the shot? That would be one hell of a coincidence.
I'm talking about mechanism (which previous results give us clues about), not just this patient and it is extremely relevant to the variability.Well, my answer to this is that I do believe super responders are possible, but it's probably small for most true responders. I'm not sure what doubling has to do with this patient, as they improved by 10%.
I'm sure you would agree with me on this, it's more than just OHC vs IHC distribution; there could be reasons that we don't understand as to why some handle the bad delivery better than others.
Let's say this patient saw a worsening. Similar margins. Would we think they were the placebo?
Being a bear sucks, especially on a support forum, but I'm trying to ask fair and critical questions.It's all plausible, although I find it difficult to explain tinnitus changes given it was previously stable for two years. I know you're being bearish for the sake of us all not getting ahead of ourselves, but I think your gut might be telling you otherwise.
The takeaway for me from my conversation with this patient is that if you put the tests aside, this patient is experiencing real life, translatable benefits. The problem we have is that these are not being reflected well enough in the endpoints, possibly due to subpar diagnostics. I'm not even going to start on subpar dosing and delivery. It's kind of sickening to think that this drug could fail not because it doesn't work but because the tools at our disposal are not objective or accurate enough to track what the drug is doing in real terms so that the FDA can approve it until Frequency Theraputics can optimise dosing and delivery.
But what if Frequency Therapeutics are right and multiple injections do dampen the effect?Being a bear sucks, especially on a support forum, but I'm trying to ask fair and critical questions.
This patient does not scream treatment to me. If their word scores went from 40% to 80% and they are as honest as you think they are, then I would change tune for this one patient anyways.
FYI, with a starting word score of 40%, the upper bound of the 95% CI is 58%. They weren't statistically significant. I'm too tired to compute the p-value, but it's quite a bit bigger than .05. I haven't looked at the PTA stats as much, but 10 dB is not unbelievable.
I see. Sorry, I get confused sometimes (and I'm going to bed now) whether we are talking about diagnostics and discovery or the overall population-level proof required in the study. As I've said before, case studies have a really important place in medicine; it's just not for proving efficacy.I'm talking about mechanism (which previous results give us clues about), not just this patient and it is extremely relevant to the variability.
But if we were to take this patient, for instance, and my theory is correct, they still wear hearing aids but some sounds are "easier to discern". They have 3 bands of 10 dB changes. This could easily fit with the drug preferring IHCs but had minor OHC changes probably on second pass but dampened by rapid repeat dosing.
There is a lot to uncover here...
I agree, we only need the age-related hearing loss trial to show meaningful improvements and maybe show some patients with a decrease of their tinnitus or completely get rid of tinnitus to convince the FDA that FX-322 works with patients with mild-moderately severe hearing loss.Are these people reporting these things to FREQ? With these kinds of results the FDA could be very flexible.
If there's anything I've learned, it's that the burden is on the data to prove the theory. Frequency Therapeutics also said that multiple injections could push the drug deeper.But what if Frequency Therapeutics are right and multiple injections do dampen the effect?
As long as absolutely none of the placebo group improves and that the FX-322 group does improve. I reckon if just one of the placebo patients also improves it will cast a huge doubt over not just these Phase 1bs but also Phase 1/2.I had a look at both trials and 24 patients will receive FX-322 and 6 patients will receive placebo for both trials.
Is 6 patients who will be receiving placebo be enough to determine if FX-322 works or not, if it does show word score improvements with a single dose of FX-322?
I thought about that as well. Maybe IHCs and OHCs are both growing but OHCs are having trouble with the synapse and IHC are not.They provided pictures that show clear and compelling indications of new hair cells being generated. Granted, it was a test environment. Still, it's hard to wrap my head around why it 'failed'. It could be some minor detail with their delivery or formulation that needs to be tweaked?
Totally get where you're coming from @Zugzug — and appreciate your valued input as always, especially taking a bearish approach — but maybe a 10 dB shift can have massive implications in terms of tinnitus reduction depending on type of damage and location of frequency.FYI, with a starting word score of 40%, the upper bound of the 95% CI is 58%. They weren't statistically significant. I'm too tired to compute the p-value, but it's quite a bit bigger than .05. I haven't looked at the PTA stats as much, but 10 dB is not unbelievable.
Goodnight! I will leave you with this since you like math and bears:I see. Sorry, I get confused sometimes (and I'm going to bed now) whether we are talking about diagnostics and discovery or the overall population-level proof required in the study. As I've said before, case studies have a really important place in medicine; it's just not for proving efficacy.
Maybe they burned themselves. They added some 'soft' criteria to increase their chances of getting a good result. If they had stuck to the published criteria and maybe added extra total numbers to get enough subjects with low WRS scores, maybe things would have been different. I think their first mistake was treating the Phase 1b as a defacto efficacy trial. They wanted the publicity. The next trial should have been the same regime with bigger numbers.There's no way Frequency Therapeutics are frauds, but they definitely didn't just "get burned" by cheaters.
Wouldn't it make sense then to abort the Phase 2a trial and get on with the post-mortem? Preferably with third party assistance imo.The investigation of the Phase 2a trials is quite different because presumably, they hope that after unblinding themselves, they can see superstar individuals in the placebo group. Then it makes sense to wonder how they became superstars under a placebo.
These are my before and after audiograms:Unlikely at all IMO, a lot of members here have been shot up with all sorts of stuff and noticed no improvements, and most people here can attest that time does nothing at all.
That is my biggest fear that both placebo and FX-322 show improvements. I hope none of the placebos show improvements and nobody fakes their word scores before the trial because that's what really cost us in the Phase 2a.As long as absolutely none of the placebo group improves and that the FX-322 group does improve. I reckon if just one of the placebo patients also improves it will cast a huge doubt over not just these Phase 2s but also Phase 1/2.
I thought about that as well. Maybe IHCs and OHCs are both growing but OHCs are having trouble with the synapse and IHC are not.
It may come to that...Would be great if we could basically redo Phase 2a with one injection and only Severe...
That's the problem with having these types of hearing conditions as each person is different and it can be really hard to test what type of hearing loss they have.Totally get where you're coming from @Zugzug — and appreciate your valued input as always, especially taking a bearish approach — but maybe a 10 dB shift can have massive implications in terms of tinnitus reduction depending on type of damage and location of frequency.
We simply do not know how much regeneration is necessary to generate enough input that would result in a noticeable improvement of tinnitus since there's so much variation amongst individual cases.
I agree with this, their biggest mistake was doing multiple doses of FX-322. They should have done a single dose again with more people to confirm that it works.Maybe they burned themselves. They added some 'soft' criteria to increase their chances of getting a good result. If they had stuck to the published criteria and maybe added extra total numbers to get enough subjects with low WRS scores, maybe things would have been different. I think their first mistake was treating the Phase 1b as a defacto efficacy trial. They wanted the publicity. The next trial should have been the same regime with bigger numbers.
Wouldn't it make sense then to abort the Phase 2a trial and get on with the post-mortem? Preferably with third party assistance imo.
If FX-322 works, do you see the severe hearing loss trial showing any improvements in word scores or do you think that with its current delivery method it will do nothing for severe hearing loss candidates?It may come to that...