What clinical evidence exists for supplements or sprays marketed as tinnitus cures?
Executive summary
Clinical evidence that dietary supplements or over‑the‑counter “sprays” cure tinnitus is weak and inconsistent: systematic and narrative reviews conclude that no specific nutritional supplement is established as a reliable treatment, while a handful of small randomized trials have tested substances like Ginkgo biloba or antioxidant mixes with mixed results [1] [2]. Commercial products often rely on user testimonials and marketing claims rather than independent, peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trials [3] [4].
1. The state of the science: no miracle nutraceutical yet
Authoritative reviews and clinical guidelines report that no single supplement is recognized as an established tinnitus cure; systematic reviews and clinical overviews emphasize that evidence for nutritional therapies is limited and low certainty, and recommend against routine use as a proven treatment [1] [5]. Large, well‑designed randomized controlled trials are generally lacking for most marketed compounds, and where trials exist they are small, heterogeneous in design and endpoints, and produce conflicting results [2] [6].
2. What randomized trials have actually tested — and what they found
Researchers have run randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled trials of specific preparations — for example, trials pairing hearing aids with a standardized Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb 761) and trials of antioxidant supplements — but results have not produced clear, reproducible benefit across populations, leaving clinical recommendations cautious [2]. Ongoing or recent trials registered on trial registries test a wider variety of strategies — from curcumin plus boswellia pills aimed at reducing inner‑ear inflammation to neuroprotectant formulas like ACEMg — yet these are still early stage or limited in size, so they cannot yet justify broad claims of cure [7] [8].
3. Devices and neuromodulation vs. pills: where evidence is strongest
The clearest high‑quality evidence in recent years supports device‑based neuromodulation (for example, bimodal devices such as Lenire) rather than dietary supplements; large randomized trials have shown symptom reduction with certain neuromodulation approaches and led to regulatory pathways, whereas nutraceuticals have not produced comparable, replicated trial evidence [9] [5]. Reviews of experimental therapies stress that brain‑targeted interventions show promise but that supplements have not demonstrated consistent efficacy in controlled settings [1] [5].
4. Commercial claims, single‑site reports and the problem of bias
Many marketed supplements and sprays—illustrated by recent promotional reviews of products like Audifort—rely on selective user reports, suggested trial periods, and mechanistic rhetoric about nutrients supporting “neurological health” rather than independent randomized trial data; such sources are commercial and prone to confirmation bias [3] [4]. Independent trial registries and research aggregators list legitimate studies, but those listings also show that high‑quality randomized evidence for most proprietary supplement formulas is absent or inconclusive [10] [11] [12].
5. Practical reading of the evidence and gaps that matter
The balanced interpretation is that some nutrients may plausibly modulate mechanisms related to tinnitus (e.g., antioxidant or anti‑inflammatory effects), and small trials have been conducted, but the aggregate clinical evidence is insufficient to endorse any over‑the‑counter supplement or spray as a cure; ongoing trials could change that assessment but have not yet produced definitive, generalizable findings [2] [8]. Consumers and clinicians should weigh the lack of replicated RCTs, the potential for commercial bias in marketing materials, and the stronger evidence for device‑based or behavioral therapies when evaluating treatment options [1] [9].