I think one of the most cost-effective, high-risk, high-reward strategies is to run small, single-center trials using the researchers on the Tinnitus Quest board and their assistants. These assistants are often low-paid master's and PhD students.
We should explore compounds already in clinical trials for other conditions, such as epilepsy (e.g., KV7.2/3 modulators, KCC2 drugs, and positive GABA modulators). If an agreement can be made with the companies to purchase these compounds for trials, this would constitute the bulk of the cost. Placebo pills, by contrast, are inexpensive.
A proposed study could involve a 50-patient, crossover trial over six weeks, utilizing a crossover design to minimize individual placebo effects. The advantage of using compounds that are already in Phase 2 or 3 clinical trials is that safety and side effect data are available, which can be presented to patients during the informed consent process. Dr. Langguth, for example, seemed neutral on KV7.2/3 modulators.
This approach appears just as promising as the ongoing research involving Psilocybin, MDMA, and tDCS. Additionally, the cost of medical-grade drugs for such treatments is often exorbitant.
Another promising avenue is a spin-off biotech from Harvard developing non-invasive devices for those with high-frequency hearing loss, which are less invasive than cochlear implants. Many of us will experience high-frequency hearing loss, making such a device or procedure a valuable investment. This technology could build on the existing data showing tinnitus suppression with cochlear implants, offering a dual benefit of improved hearing and reduced tinnitus.
Ultimately, it's about opening dialogue with researchers and organizations, assessing where they are, and identifying the best value-for-money opportunities.