My educated guess is
Acousia Therapeutics! It's too obvious to miss! They have a direct connection to Tübingen. Or did everyone here miss the fact that Tübingen is a site of interest for hearing restoration in Germany? The fact that professor Löwenheim is based in Tübingen? The fact that he founded Otogene AG in Tübingen? One of the first companies in the world to even attempt to develop therapies for hearing restoration? The fact that professor Löwenheim founded Acousia which also happens to be registered in Tübingen?
So yeah... so much for guessing! It's too easy.
@vaka was probably at the "Klinikum", which is a teaching hospital and a home to the medical faculty of the Eberhard Karls university in Tübingen.
The reality is that around 10 or 15 % of clinical trials are completed and give access to the market.
Do you have a source for this?
Frequency TX seems to be the more advanced for now
Compared to everyone else? Why?
If something is tested this summer in Germany, many of us could apply.
Ask to participate in the trial, yes. We can all do that. But qualify for it? I don't think so! Most of these trials only enroll people with severe to profound hearing loss. I don't think there are that many of us here with that level of hearing loss.
They seem to be focusing on acute hearing loss.
Acute hearing loss does not mean they will hurry to run the trial and develop a treatment. Unfortunately!
I would love if the first treatment came in Germany
Deutsche qualität!
The paper they published two/three weeks ago was totally groundbreaking and could lead to something even greater.
Could you please remind me what paper that was?
does this mean that the old dead hair cells will remain?
No! They will be absorbed by the body. But it would help to know just how far that process has gone, following an acoustic trauma for example, before administering the therapeutic agent. To this end we will need something better than the audiometer. Something to the likes of a µOCT endoscope to assess the cellular damage.
but this hints at regenerating hair cells next to dead ones from what i'm lead to believe
You sure know how to ask complicated questions!
I would say Yes and No to this. Again, this calls for a diagnostic tool that can assess the cellular damage, prior to therapy. The body needs to be given time to bury its dead. Does that make sense?
Otherwise it would be like trying to bury a dead person in an occupied grave, or trying to wake the dead where the living stand if you enjoy that version better. Zombies!
Woohoho!
Think of crumbling ground and a zombie crawling up under your feet!
The body has potential to bury its dead. It's doing that all the time. It's just that, in many parts of the body this is a natural process where old cells die off and new cells are born. While in case of inner ear, this does not happen, and we don't have a tool to see what's going on in there. Not without injuring the patient in the process. So we don't really know what it looks like in there when we administer the therapeutic agent.
If the body has absorbed the dead cells, the new cells will rise from where the old cells used to be. If not, then the new cells will sidestep the dead so to speak and rise next to them, leaving the dead ones to be processed. The new cells would rise where the previously dead and processed cells stood. So you would have a mix of old, dead and new cells. That's why I think the new cells don't line up nicely when you look at pictures from the microscope.
This, I think, will ultimately lead to mixed results from the early regenerative therapies. So we may need to repeat the therapy once the old and dead cells have been absorbed by the body, if they were not absorbed by the time of first therapy.
These things are more complicated than one would expect. That's why we need more time and more research done to perfect the therapy. There are still a lot of cellular and molecular mechanisms that we don't understand. But the first therapies will be out there in the next few years, no doubt. I just think we need to be more cautious about what to expect from these.
It's likely that dead hair cells themselves are not responsible for T and H. It's the synapses that were attached to them. Once a hair cell dies, the synapses start to retract.
It's not the synapses themselves that are responsible for T and H. It's spiral ganglion neurons from which they are projected.
I just felt the need to defend the synapses!
In fact we all know the pics from electron microscopy showing the crippled IHCs.
Don't only look at the picture. Read the text as well and try to find out how long after the damage the picture was taken.
If they are not removed then they are still alive?
They turn into Schrödinger's cat!