Lenire (bimodal tongue stimulation) for Tinnitus: What Does the Evidence Show?

Neuromodulation · Ranked #2 on our Top 10 (weighting-sensitive)

Current evidence

Pairs sound with mild tongue stimulation — the first and only device of its type the FDA has authorized for tinnitus. Large trials and real-world data, but all company-funded and none with a placebo group.

Evidence strength: Moderate (3/5) · Tier 2 — promising · Evidence independence: Primarily sponsor-supported.

A prescription device from Neuromod (Dublin): headphones deliver sound while a small mouthpiece ('Tonguetip') delivers mild electrical pulses to the tongue, typically 30–60 minutes daily for 12 weeks, fitted at trained clinics.

Did tinnitus loudness improve?

None shown. No published psychoacoustic loudness-matching benefit. All primary endpoints are THI (a distress/handicap instrument).

Did tinnitus distress improve?

Moderate. Consistent within-arm THI improvements across TENT-A1/A2/A3 and real-world cohorts — but no trial had a sham arm, the pivotal trial's full-cohort primary endpoint was missed, and the pre-specified benefit appeared only in the moderate-or-worse (THI≥38) subgroup.

Loudness means the tinnitus percept itself became quieter (psychoacoustic matching or loudness ratings). Distress means questionnaire scores such as THI/TFI, sleep, anxiety or quality of life improved — the sound may be unchanged. A THI/TFI improvement is never evidence the tinnitus got quieter.

How strong is the evidence?

Three large trials, regulatory authorization and real-world consistency earn 3/5 — capped there because no sham-controlled arm exists, the pivotal full-cohort endpoint was missed (severe-subgroup benefit only), and there is no independent replication.

Has the result been independently replicated?

Same group/sponsor only. TENT-A1/A2/A3 and the real-world cohort are all sponsor-run (Neuromod); no independent replication.

Independence: Every efficacy trial to date was funded and run by Neuromod Devices; a key author is Neuromod's CSO.

What are the limitations?

Conflicts of interest: All trials funded by Neuromod; key author Hubert Lim is Neuromod's CSO with a financial interest.

What should patients know about safety?

Safety evidence: Strong. 96.8% of device-related adverse events in the pivotal trial were mild; no serious device-related events.

Is it available?

Regulatory status: FDA De Novo authorized. De Novo DEN210033 granted March 6, 2023 — the only device in FDA's bimodal tinnitus-treatment classification (21 CFR 874.3410, product code QVN). Precision matters: dozens of tinnitus MASKERS (Neuromonics, Levo, Widex Zen, SilentCloud…) hold 510(k) clearances under the separate masker regulation 874.3400, so 'only FDA-authorized tinnitus device' would be wrong. This is also not a PMA 'approval' — company marketing that says 'FDA approved' overstates the pathway. Also CE-marked in Europe.

Availability: Available by prescription through trained audiology/ENT clinics; available to veterans through the VA · Europe: Available (CE mark) in several countries · Cost (approx.): ≈$3,200–4,750 self-pay (commonly ~$4,000) including fitting and follow-up; generally not insurance-covered

What the studies found

TENT-A1: bimodal sound + tongue stimulation for tinnitus

Conlon B, Lim HH, et al. · Science Translational Medicine · 2020 · N=326 · Randomized double-blinded comparison of three stimulation parameter sets

Pre-specified primary result: within-arm THI improvement, effect sizes d = −0.87 to −0.92 across the three arms (≈14 THI points pooled), p<0.001 — but the arms did not differ from each other, and no arm was a sham.

The widely quoted '86.2% improved at 12 weeks / 80.1% sustained at 12 months' figures come from manufacturer materials, count ANY improvement among compliant completers (not clinically meaningful responders), and could not be verified in the paper itself. Because every arm received active treatment, the trial cannot separate device effect from placebo/natural course.

PubMed 33028707 · DOI 10.1126/scitranslmed.abb2830

TENT-A2: different bimodal neuromodulation settings in a large randomized trial

Conlon B, Hamilton C, Meade E, …, Lim HH. · Scientific Reports · 2022 · N=191 fitted, 4 arms · Randomized comparison of stimulation settings (no sham arm)

Paper's own numbers: THI −18.5 points at end of treatment (arms 1–2 average; arm-level range −14.2 to −21.2), −20.2 at 12-month follow-up; TFI −15.3 / −17.3; Cohen's d −0.7 to −1.4.

The manufacturer's oft-quoted '20.3 points' corresponds to the 12-month follow-up THI (20.2 in the paper). As in TENT-A1, no sham: within-arm changes cannot be separated from placebo/natural course.

PubMed 35773272 · DOI 10.1038/s41598-022-13875-x

TENT-A3 pivotal trial: sound-only vs bimodal stimulation (within-subject)

Boedts M, et al. · Nature Communications · 2024 · N=112 enrolled (105 analyzed) · Multi-site single-arm within-subject: 6 weeks sound-only, then 6 weeks bimodal

The primary endpoint was NOT achieved in the full cohort: responder rate during the bimodal stage was 43.3% vs 63.3% during the preceding sound-only stage. Important: this is a sequential design — everyone got sound first, bimodal second, and the bimodal stage was measured from an already-improved baseline — so it is NOT evidence that sound beats bimodal, but neither does it show bimodal superiority. In the moderate-or-worse subgroup (THI≥38 at stage start — a threshold specified at a pre-planned interim analysis, not in the original protocol): bimodal 58.6% vs sound-only 43.2%, p=0.022.

96.8% of device-related adverse events were mild; no serious device-related AEs. This is the trial behind the FDA De Novo authorization — which rested on the severe-subgroup result. ITT analysis n=112 with imputation for dropouts.

PubMed 39160146 · DOI 10.1038/s41467-024-50473-z

First US real-world Lenire cohort (Communications Medicine)

McMahan E, Lim HH, et al. · Communications Medicine (Nature Portfolio) · 2025 · N=212 fitted / 220 enrolled · Retrospective real-world cohort

91.5% responder rate; mean THI improvement 27.8 points — open-label, uncontrolled real-world data.

First of two US chart reviews (the second is Kasper 2026, Am J Audiol).

PubMed 40295853 · DOI 10.1038/s43856-025-00837-3

Real-world Lenire outcomes: US clinic chart review

Kasper CA, May JM, Crossland NE, Lim HH · American Journal of Audiology · 2026 · N=140 fitted (66 of 104 'bothered' patients analyzed at 12 weeks) · Retrospective single-site chart review

Among the 66 bothered-tinnitus patients (THI≥38) with 12-week data, 81.8% (95% CI 70.9–89.3) achieved ≥7-point THI improvement; mean −23.8 points. Non-bothered patients showed essentially no change.

Uncontrolled real-world data with substantial follow-up attrition (66/104) and counseling co-intervention; consistent with trials but cannot separate treatment from placebo/natural course.

PubMed 41528257 · DOI 10.1044/2025_AJA-25-00090

Tinnitus — current developments (state-of-the-field overview)

Mazurek B, Steinmetzger K, Boecking B, Hesse G, Brueggemann P. · HNO · 2025 · N=— · Narrative review

CBT 'remains the gold standard.' Neuromodulation's clinical effectiveness judged 'relatively low'; for bimodal tongue stimulation, significant effects only in moderate-severe tinnitus and 'proof of clinical relevance is still lacking.'

PubMed 40920197 · DOI 10.1007/s00106-025-01668-3

Related clinical trials

Tracked trials are research in progress, not recommended treatments.

Related treatments

Evidence last reviewed: 2026-09-03 · Evidence included through: 2026-09-03 · Confidence: high. Open the interactive evidence profile.

This page summarizes published research for education. It is not medical advice; it cannot say what will work for any individual. Discuss treatment decisions with a qualified clinician.