MemberThey should be. They really need to look into some better PR/Marketing. I really can see the push back from people on Twitter. Most replies you get back about release data are "soon". They could at least tell us that they are working with audiologists and experts in the field for training to get the device in our hands as soon as possible. If they need a little more time to fine tune things that is OK too, just be upfront and honest about it. "Soon" just doesn't cut it for me.
MuteButton
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
- Status
- May 29, 2018
- 1,161
- Tinnitus Since
- 10/2017
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Neck/stress
My hunch is they fear us. At the moment their baby is safely tucked up in a carefully controlled bubble. The minute they sell it to is they lose all control over their future.
We then take over... good or bad.
- Dec 19, 2018
- 108
- Tinnitus Since
- 10/2018
- Cause of Tinnitus
- ETD possibly, or neck and jaw, or maybe anxiety?
I think they are just a small company who is not great at handling their media marketing. All of their staff is too busy focusing on pushing this out, they don't have time to give updates. As much as I hate to say it, not a lot of people are pushing them for this, so they don't seem to mind holding off.
However, once it works for many people, they will be all over the marketing. I think they just need more time.
- May 29, 2018
- 1,161
- Tinnitus Since
- 10/2017
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Neck/stress
Surely they realise that all they've got to do is start selling the bloody thing and if it really works word of mouth will drive sales through the roof.
- Apr 15, 2017
- 1,419
- Tinnitus Since
- 2008
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Noise
The most we can do lads is be patient. Hopefully there will be some media coverage of the events taking place in Baltimore, USA. I believe Frequency Therapeutics ill be there and also Susan Shore will also be delivering a presentation.
This thing should be open to everybody; sufferers included.
This thing should be open to everybody; sufferers included.
I think they are doing some decent marketing activities. They brought in Hubert Lim who is now presenting to their key stakeholders, i.e. professionals (audiologists, ENTs). If they get word out to them, they will get the word out to mass market of tinnitus sufferers.
Tinnitus Talk is not really a mass market.
If you count together all people of all online-based tinnitus support groups (including Facebook) you have fewer than 93,000 in total. Why are regular people not searching for tinnitus? They are not bothered by it?
Are we sure Neuromod will sell enough devices to not go bankrupt?
Neuromod will be presenting at this event today. Can someone go and take notes?!
ARO Science Café — Baltimore, February 8th, 2019
ARO Science Café — Baltimore, February 8th, 2019
I am not sure this is a conference for the masses. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it's for people in the industry.
This ARO Science Café thing I mentioned and linked is open for everyone, patients too!
Don't usually post here, but I stumbled on this results slide from a Neuromod presentation. It's pretty low res. If someone can decipher/enhance it, might be something! And the ENT who tweeted this seems to have been impressed...
I'm assuming the dotted line is baseline--the slide is titled "Sustained Therapeutic Effects: Baseline-12 months)" and the bottom line ("Arm 1," which clinically outperforms "Arm 3") might say "synchronous"? (i.e. auditory and tongue-tip stimulation?). Arm 3 is likely either a placebo or a different configuration.
Does the right side say 2-7 points MCID?
Does the right side say 2-7 points MCID?
Last edited:
- Dec 19, 2018
- 108
- Tinnitus Since
- 10/2018
- Cause of Tinnitus
- ETD possibly, or neck and jaw, or maybe anxiety?
I want to talk about the efficacy.
Compared to Susan Shore, the difference is the placement of the electrostimulation from the neck (somatosensory nerve), to the tongue (trigeminal nerve).
What Hubert Lim stated was that the tongue was the most accurate place for this stimulation. Both nerves go to the DCN. So, by that rationale, both devices should essentially do the same thing.
What is everyone's thoughts on this?
Compared to Susan Shore, the difference is the placement of the electrostimulation from the neck (somatosensory nerve), to the tongue (trigeminal nerve).
What Hubert Lim stated was that the tongue was the most accurate place for this stimulation. Both nerves go to the DCN. So, by that rationale, both devices should essentially do the same thing.
What is everyone's thoughts on this?
- Apr 15, 2017
- 1,419
- Tinnitus Since
- 2008
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Noise
What I would comment regarding the Susan Shore paper from the 20 patients was that the results were good, but not earth-shattering. It's important to remember what was actually in the paper.
This is promising, but it is important to keep in mind what is actually in the paper.
First, the average reductions in TFI in the active treatment and active washout phases are 7.51 and 6.71 points, respectively. These were both significantly different from 0, but they are both much less than 13 which is the cutoff for clinical significance.
Additionally, the mean reduction during the sham phase is about 2 points, and the sham washout has a mean reduction of a bit less than 2. Thus, the effect of the treatment itself (active - sham) is about 5.5 to 4.7 points - not large. Either way, on average the treatment has a statistically significant but clinically insignificant effect on the TFI.
Second, 10 of the 20 subjects did have a clinically meaningful reduction of at least 13 points during the active treatment. This is good. However, we don't know what reductions these individuals had during the sham phase. In fact, 4 participants had clinically significant reductions during the sham phase, and 2 participants had clinically significant reductions during BOTH phases. The authors do say that the two who experienced reductions during both phases experienced larger reductions during the active phase, but they don't provide the information so that the reader can understand the differences. It would have been useful to see individual level data. This would be possible with only 20 subjects, and it would allow the reader to see the degree to which individuals who saw improvement in the active phase also saw improvement in the sham phase. Ideally you would like to see responses during the active phase and no response during the sham phase for each person. Assuming they are correct that the sham is truly a sham, it acts like a placebo so if you see a reduction in TFI or loudness during the sham period this is due to the placebo effect. That's why you need to subtract out the effect of the placebo in order to determine the effect of the treatment.
Third, assuming the treatment truly does have a clinically significant reduction for a significant proportion of people who are treated, it would be useful to know ahead of time who might benefit. In this case, there were no demographic differences between the people who improved significantly and those that didn't. This may be due to the very small sample. Assuming the results persist in a larger sample, perhaps observable differences will observe.
Fourth, there is a reduction in loudness during the treatment of about 8 dB. Unlike the reduction in TFI, this effect becomes smaller during the active washout. Thus, it appears that any sustained reduction in perceived loudness requires continued use of the device. However, the 8 dB reduction isn't all due to the treatment. The effect during sham treatment is a reduction in loudness of about 3.5 dB or so (hard to say exactly from the figure). Thus the net reduction due to the treatment is about 4.5 dB. (In Figure 6C, it's interesting that there is a similar relationship from sham to sham washout that there is between the active and active washout.)
Fifth, 2 people did report the elimination of tinnitus "toward the end of the active treatment period" though there is no information on the durability of that result.
So there are promising results here, but they aren't earth-shattering. It's important to remember this is a small study with some promising results. We won't really know more until they do a larger study which is or will soon be underway.
Compare that to the TENT-A1 study that is being presented. Subjective tinnitus sucks in getting accurate data.
I don't know. It could be your bank account's history.Arrows go down so that has to be a winner.
Down isn't always good... but in this context, I don't mind down.
Seems like they will have a bunch of conference presentations all through end of March. Seeing this device before that seems unlikely.
https://www.neuromoddevices.com/newsroom/2019/february-and-march-2019-meeting-schedule
https://www.neuromoddevices.com/newsroom/2019/february-and-march-2019-meeting-schedule
- Apr 15, 2017
- 1,419
- Tinnitus Since
- 2008
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Noise
Without doubt your bank balance is gonna go down but what the heck if tinnitus goes down with it ha ha.
- Apr 15, 2017
- 1,419
- Tinnitus Since
- 2008
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Noise
They said it will be released in the first quarter of 2019 and expect revenue first quarter. Doesn't that mean it should be released before the end of March? The peer review can take up to the summer of this year, but they can release the device before that if they choose too.
My theory is that if it is pushed back, they don't want to create "another pseudo science device" that the majority won't believe in, instead they are wanting to make it more credible and protecting their image, maybe?
I was looking at old articles from the original MuteButton and it appears that Neuromod Clinic was also a part of the original plan. I assume everyone knows this? Is it possible this is going to happen again?
- Apr 15, 2017
- 1,419
- Tinnitus Since
- 2008
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Noise
Possibly. Unless they're confident enough in their approach with their data to sell through audiologists. I guess audiologists would either be for or against it, for example if you held a high street reputable business, do you want to sell somebody something on limited evidence? Because that's what they will be doing.
As somebody who has followed tinnitus research for years (on a layman's point), I certainly will retain and be waiting for evidence base to build up, as if history repeats itself, there always does appear to be good results from the developers of a device. I will not waste money ever again on something that does not have a strong base of evidence; to this date Neuromod does not for the general consumer.
For what it's worth distribution to more dispensaries is a good thing. If Neuromod had their own initial clinic at first it does not curtail them from growing from there.
All I know is that I see in the press releases from 4 years ago that they were planning their own clinic. I need to find those quotes again for people...
- Apr 15, 2017
- 1,419
- Tinnitus Since
- 2008
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Noise
I know they sold 100 devices and had a 1 day a week open clinic. I wonder if any news will come about after their presentations in Baltimore.
I'm hoping they got FDA approval and fast tracking. Would be wonderful if they could sell in North America on day one, or at least ship to US or Canada.
- Status