Frequency Therapeutics — Hearing Loss Regeneration

#18,301
GlennS said:
Try to look at it from the vantage point of those with hearing damage, not the corporate board. Patients judging this treatment are going to want to see improvements in the audiogram before anything else.
Click to expand...
I don't care about the numbers particularly but I do care about being able to hear sounds again that I no longer can. That includes soft talkers and cicadas in the evening. The audiogram is currently the only way to measure that. Without audiogram improvements you're also left with the question of what the hell's going on. Increasing loudness is what was supposed to happen when you regenerate hair cells. They're going to try to sell a drug that delivers 'clarity' improvements. Err... how does it work? I'd like them to know!
Zugzug said:
Do you put your foot down and refuse the drug?
Click to expand...
I would unless clarity improvements were very significant and consistent. This business about just getting FX-322 to market and then good things will follow sounds like a cargo cult to me.
 
#18,302
d'Wooluf said:
I don't care about the numbers particularly but I do care about being able to hear sounds again that I no longer can. That includes soft talkers and cicadas in the evening. The audiogram is currently the only way to measure that. Without audiogram improvements you're also left with the question of what the hell's going on. Increasing loudness is what was supposed to happen when you regenerate hair cells. They're going to try to sell a drug that delivers 'clarity' improvements. Err... how does it work? I'd like them to know!

I would unless clarity improvements were very significant and consistent. This business about just getting FX-322 to market and then good things will follow sounds like a cargo cult to me.
Click to expand...
The mental gymnastics are wild. If FX-322 does go to market, both you and @GlennS are getting it the second you can. Why are you even arguing otherwise.
 
#18,303
d'Wooluf said:
Increasing loudness is what was supposed to happen when you regenerate hair cells. They're going to try to sell a drug that delivers 'clarity' improvements. Err... how does it work? I'd like them to know!
Click to expand...
Increasing loudness is not what is supposed to happen at all. That would mean external sound gets louder with the application of FX-322. This is what hearing aids do. If it were a biological change, loudness sounds like hyperacusis.

When new cells are regenerated, those areas become more sensitive to a quieter, lower energy range sounds. Which aids in more clearer hearing. Also, if there are more functioning stereocilia in the cochlea, the brain has more information to work with and is able to filter sound in noisy environments, also a function of clarity.
 
#18,304
Damocles said:
Sh*t, if it's safe and doesn't do anything, I'll take it. Can't be that much different than the TRU NIAGEN sitting in the back of my drawer.
Click to expand...
This isn't an ad for Tru Niagen but I'm starting to think that it actually improved my hearing. I checked an old audiogram from 2016 (done during a general checkup, not issue related) and compared my February 2021 (just after tinnitus onset) and May 2021 audiograms.

2016 and February 2021 both showed the same drop off (about 25 dB) at 6-8 kHz.
May 2021, 8 kHz it is 0 dB. It could be a fluke at the audiogram but my hearing is super sharp even with this constant hiss. The only thing I could attribute to the increase was Nicotinamide Riboside that I took for two months.
 
#18,305
d'Wooluf said:
I don't care about the numbers particularly but I do care about being able to hear sounds again that I no longer can. That includes soft talkers and cicadas in the evening. The audiogram is currently the only way to measure that. Without audiogram improvements you're also left with the question of what the hell's going on. Increasing loudness is what was supposed to happen when you regenerate hair cells. They're going to try to sell a drug that delivers 'clarity' improvements. Err... how does it work? I'd like them to know!

I would unless clarity improvements were very significant and consistent. This business about just getting FX-322 to market and then good things will follow sounds like a cargo cult to me.
Click to expand...
Hang on though... don't outer and inner hair cells do completely different things? Thus doesn't this make it entirely plausible that a treatment like FX-322 works by treating inner hair cells only could aid clarity without aiding volume?
 
#18,306
Tezcatlipoca said:
both you and @GlennS are getting it the second you can. Why are you even arguing otherwise.
Click to expand...
You're presuming that I don't walk the talk? Nope. Improved WR scores alone don't cut it for me. I need to 'see the beef'. I had an early reservation for Lenire and I canceled that too once it became clear to me the results didn't live up to the hype. Feel free to lay down a wager if you insist on knowing better how I will behave in the future than I do.
 
#18,308
d'Wooluf said:
I would unless clarity improvements were very significant and consistent. This business about just getting FX-322 to market and then good things will follow sounds like a cargo cult to me.
Click to expand...
Just a run of the mill visceral reaction to reading this is that you may benefit from reading more about the difference between OHC and IHC function.
 
#18,311
GlennS said:
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. That's just a layman's way of saying improved audiograms.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I think you suffer from hardcore Dunning-Kruger when it comes to hearing research. @Diesel has been relegated to a Kindergarten biology teacher so he has to simplify things, only to see it backfire.

Firstly, when he says that "increasing loudness is not what is supposed to happen at all," he is NOT creating an upside down world and saying that "we would not want improved hearing thresholds." You read everything looking to see that narrative, no matter what.

What he is saying is that when you regenerate OHC, the brain doesn't develop loudness hyperacusis (i.e. increase in central gain as a result of weakened input). If anything, it's the opposite — the central gain "loudness" is less because of restored input.

Put simply, OHC mechanically amplify low-level noises for the IHC to process. Then 95% of afferent neurons are Type I, which send hearing signal to the brain.

Let me say it loud and clear: Everyone wants to see audiogram improvements. There's no "ah, it doesn't even matter, audiograms are useless" aspect. Of course, audiograms matter for hearing. In real world settings, they also matter for clarity because the volume of noise is not fixed and comfortable.

For example, if your friend whispers to you and you have audiogram problems, you may also have clarity issues making out what they are saying. The isolated role of IHC in clarity is totally different. The WR test fixes the volume at a comfortable level. I know I've explained this to you before, but imagine your friend talking to you and you have no issues at all hearing them. But it just sounds like noisy, unclear garbage. This is the difference between "clarity problems" from IHC vs OHC.

If your friend talks and it feels like they were whispering and you say "repeat please," that's an OHC issue. If your friend shouts "cat" and you think they said "cap," that's more an IHC issue.

We all love audiograms. I would marry one if I could. God knows I'm lonely as fuck. But they aren't all there is to this thing.
 
#18,312
Is it still fair to stay that there could well be decent audiogram improvements above 8 kHz but we just don't know yet? From the phase 1 trials it was reported some improvements at 8 kHz, but above that wasn't measured. The upcoming reports from single dose trials where 8-16 kHz is being measured should answer this with a bit more certainty.
 
#18,313
Lukee said:
This isn't an ad for Tru Niagen but I'm starting to think that it actually improved my hearing. I checked an old audiogram from 2016 (done during a general checkup, not issue related) and compared my February 2021 (just after tinnitus onset) and May 2021 audiograms.

2016 and February 2021 both showed the same drop off (about 25 dB) at 6-8 kHz.
May 2021, 8 kHz it is 0 dB. It could be a fluke at the audiogram but my hearing is super sharp even with this constant hiss. The only thing I could attribute to the increase was Nicotinamide Riboside that I took for two months.
Click to expand...
That sound like a miracle what we once expected from FX-322. Can you please provide details about dosage etc.?
 
#18,314
ploughna said:
Is it still fair to stay that there could well be decent audiogram improvements above 8 kHz but we just don't know yet? From the phase 1 trials it was reported some improvements at 8 kHz, but above that wasn't measured. The upcoming reports from single dose trials where 8-16 kHz is being measured should answer this with a bit more certainty.
Click to expand...
The ultra high frequencies were already measured in Phase 2a. FX-322 didn't do anything.
 
#18,315
Zugzug said:
With all due respect, I think you suffer from hardcore Dunning-Kruger when it comes to hearing research. @Diesel has been relegated to a Kindergarten biology teacher so he has to simplify things, only to see it backfire.

Firstly, when he says that "increasing loudness is not what is supposed to happen at all," he is NOT creating an upside down world and saying that "we would not want improved hearing thresholds." You read everything looking to see that narrative, no matter what.

What he is saying is that when you regenerate OHC, the brain doesn't develop loudness hyperacusis (i.e. increase in central gain as a result of weakened input). If anything, it's the opposite — the central gain "loudness" is less because of restored input.

Put simply, OHC mechanically amplify low-level noises for the IHC to process. Then 95% of afferent neurons are Type I, which send hearing signal to the brain.

Let me say it loud and clear: Everyone wants to see audiogram improvements. There's no "ah, it doesn't even matter, audiograms are useless" aspect. Of course, audiograms matter for hearing. In real world settings, they also matter for clarity because the volume of noise is not fixed and comfortable.

For example, if your friend whispers to you and you have audiogram problems, you may also have clarity issues making out what they are saying. The isolated role of IHC in clarity is totally different. The WR test fixes the volume at a comfortable level. I know I've explained this to you before, but imagine your friend talking to you and you have no issues at all hearing them. But it just sounds like noisy, unclear garbage. This is the difference between "clarity problems" from IHC vs OHC.

If your friend talks and it feels like they were whispering and you say "repeat please," that's an OHC issue. If your friend shouts "cat" and you think they said "cap," that's more an IHC issue.

We all love audiograms. I would marry one if I could. God knows I'm lonely as fuck. But they aren't all there is to this thing.
Click to expand...
I've read this thread marginally since FX-322 failed in Phase 2a, but where did this OHC/IHC thing come from? Has it actually been confirmed this is the reason why in Phase 1/2 audiograms didn't show any results, but WR scores did (well, for 65% of patients the drug didn't do anything for clarity in either, but those are details)?
 
#18,317
Jurger said:
I've read this thread marginally since FX-322 failed in Phase 2a, but where did this OHC/IHC thing come from? Has it actually been confirmed this is the reason why in Phase 1/2 audiograms didn't show any results, but WR scores did (well, for 65% of patients the drug didn't do anything for clarity in either, but those are details)?
Click to expand...
That's less so what the back and forth is about. The overall competency of the drug is still disputed/unknown. The entire discussion is about how OHC/IHC do different things (this is not speculative at all) and a desire to diagnose what's going on in FX-322 treated ears. Is there some IHC regrowth? If so, is it a small percentage of people? Is the delivery so bad that OHC regrowth is negligible in almost all patients?

Much more about discussion than any proofs, as of today.
 
#18,318
Jurger said:
I've read this thread marginally since FX-322 failed in Phase 2a, but where did this OHC/IHC thing come from? Has it actually been confirmed this is the reason why in Phase 1/2 audiograms didn't show any results, but WR scores did (well, for 65% of patients the drug didn't do anything for clarity in either, but those are details)?
Click to expand...
A few sources have been cited here since the Phase 2A ended, one actually referencing the outcome of the interim readout, pointing to IHC being more important for complex sound detection needed for WR and WIN.

Audiograms have also been discussed to death here as a better indicator of OHC health, and not IHC.
 
#18,319
Coleoptere said:
That sound like a miracle what we once expected from FX-322. Can you please provide details about dosage etc.?
Click to expand...
It is not FX-322 for sure. My tinnitus was left mostly unchanged so the only thing I can go off is an audiogram. I would bet my life on the treatment but I think there is some evidence that it works on some level. I took one pill daily (I think it's 350 mg) and that's it.
 
#18,321
RingingBrother said:
FX-322 has already restored hair cells in donated cochlea. I would say that's enough to have some faith in the drug.
Click to expand...
I remember reading this a few times before. If this is the case, then what is causing there to be no results in the audiogram test? Did the participants mention any other improvements such as clarity of speech in a noisy environment?
 
#18,323
Andrei90 said:
I remember reading this a few times before. If this is the case, then what is causing there to be no results in the audiogram test? Did the participants mention any other improvements such as clarity of speech in a noisy environment?
Click to expand...
All the trial reports are on FREQ's website that explain this.
 
#18,325
Diesel said:
Actually.. it doesn't.

Frequency Therapeutics Releases New Data from Two FX-322 Clinical Studies; Plans to Advance Single-Dose Regimen
Click to expand...
Related:

If I recall (sorry, can't listen to the webcasts), didn't leadership say that there were no significant audiogram changes in the EHF range during the Phase 1/2, even after follow up?

Considering that the multi-dose experiment "dampened" the WR improvements, it's probably fair to expect negligible EHF audiogram improvements by day 210 of Phase 2a. At least, this is what I'm expecting personally.
 
#18,327
Zugzug said:
Related:

If I recall (sorry, can't listen to the webcasts), didn't leadership say that there were no significant audiogram changes in the EHF range during the Phase 1/2, even after follow up?

Considering that the multi-dose experiment "dampened" the WR improvements, it's probably fair to expect negligible EHF audiogram improvements by day 210 of Phase 2a. At least, this is what I'm expecting personally.
Click to expand...
I'll have to go re-listen to the webcast. In my notes, there was a question about EHF performance compared to placebo where LeBel stated that he couldn't see any. However, the placebo group saw improvements as well due to bias problems, so the data at a group level overall was so fucked they probably could not comment on any differences with any confidence.
 
#18,329
Diesel said:
I'll have to go re-listen to the webcast. In my notes, there was a question about EHF performance compared to placebo where LeBel stated that he couldn't see any. However, the placebo group saw improvements as well due to bias problems, so the data at a group level overall was so fucked they probably could not comment on any differences with any confidence.
Click to expand...
I believe they said there was no difference between placebo improvements and drug improvements.

Since no one knew if they got placebo or drug, both groups were equally impacted by bias, and both groups showed similar "improvement."

Unfortunately, that's not a meaningless result. It suggests the drug was not effective.

Otherwise, you would see bias "improvement" + actual improvement, i.e. more improvement, among the drug-receiving cohort.
 
#18,330
Jack V said:
I believe they said there was no difference between placebo improvements and drug improvements.

Since no one knew if they got placebo or drug, both groups were equally impacted by bias, and both groups showed similar "improvement."

Unfortunately, that's not a meaningless result. It suggests the drug was not effective.

Otherwise, you would see bias "improvement" + actual improvement, i.e. more improvement, among the drug-receiving cohort.
Click to expand...
I tend to see validity to your argument here. Bias is a baked in aspect of every placebo-controlled study. I outlined in my bear thesis (something I'm going to narcissistically reference from time to time) that given the 3:1 treatment to placebo ratio, the expected value of cheater benefit (however few there are) could actually benefit the treatment groups more. I also pointed out the damning fact that if a "cheater" got the placebo and saw no improvements, they would be inspired to tank again at the end because by tanking the placebos, they increase their chances of getting the actual drug (when it goes to market) as soon as possible.

Where I'm a hair bullish is that I do have some hope for individual responders. I think there could be (however small) a population type that sees nice IHC gains. To me, that's progress and the start of a breakthrough, as it would be the first regenerative medication for the ear with even some evidence of in vivo response.

At a systemic level, I don't see this drug delivering the goods until a new delivery method. While it's probably true that there was a dampening effect from multi-dose, I'm not expecting riveting single dose results in the next Phase 2, though I'm hoping there's enough to clear the trial.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now

Similar threads

N
Delix Therapeutics — Neuroplastogen for Hearing Loss
Replies
6
Views
3K
Research News
AverageJoe12
AverageJoe12
N
Hoba Therapeutics' HB-097 for Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Replies
2
Views
1K
Research News
Nick47
N
N
Amber Therapeutics — Brain Implants
Replies
0
Views
825
Research News
Nick47
N
LBE
Intratympanic Lidocaine as a Potent Remedy for Tinnitus in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Replies
2
Views
795
Research News
LBE
LBE
I
From Hidden Hearing Loss to Supranormal Auditory Processing by Increasing Neurotrophin 3
Replies
3
Views
2K
Research News
sspencermo
sspencermo
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Members
Donate
Menu