In response to a recent article in Hoorzaken, which I fully support, I want to emphasize once again that we must make the counterargument even louder. Devices like Lenire are gaining more attention and appeal, despite ongoing critical voices from the scientific community.
The more they are discussed, the more people start to believe that this device might be the solution—even when the evidence is weak. This kind of public interest can backfire; people, desperate for relief, will try Lenire despite strong criticisms. This is exactly where devices like these derive their power from the placebo effect, which only benefits them.
The placebo effect has been well-documented and researched, particularly in conditions like tinnitus, which are difficult to measure and subjective in nature. Studies show that hope and expectation play a significant role in the perception of improvement.
This is especially true for conditions without a clear physiological cause, such as tinnitus, where people sometimes perceive progress purely due to their expectation of relief.
Devices like Lenire, which do not truly address tinnitus, exploit this placebo effect without providing solid scientific backing.
The placebo effect and high costs: The more expensive, the stronger?
There is extensive scientific evidence that the placebo effect is amplified by the price of a treatment. For example, Waber et al. (2008) found that participants rated an expensive placebo painkiller as more effective than a cheaper version, even though both contained the same (inactive) substance.
Geers et al. (2013) further confirmed that patients’ expectations play a central role in the intensity of the placebo effect, particularly in conditions like pain and tinnitus, which are subjectively experienced. For devices like Lenire, with their high price tags, this strengthens the placebo effect, leading to a temporary perception of relief despite a lack of proven efficacy.
The danger of false promises and missed opportunities
The problem lies not only in the device's functionality but also in how it is presented. Lenire claims to offer a solution, yet it completely ignores what truly matters. By focusing on such a device, patients miss out on crucial diagnostic opportunities—opportunities that could help uncover the real underlying issues.
Tinnitus is a complex condition, often closely linked to psychological factors such as anxiety and stress. Several studies indicate that tinnitus is much more than just a problem of the auditory system; it often involves central brain mechanisms that are directly influenced by emotional states.
Research has shown that a multidisciplinary approach—including psychological interventions—is far more effective than a device like Lenire, which focuses solely on physical stimulation. Lenire disregards the complexity of tinnitus.
The real danger is that people become fixated on a device that offers little to no long-term solutions, ultimately sidelining more comprehensive treatments that could offer deeper, evidence-based relief.
Psychological components and tinnitus: Anxiety and stress as core factors
Multiple studies have demonstrated that tinnitus is often exacerbated by psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and stress. Research by Andersson and McKenna (2006) shows that the level of tinnitus-related distress and anxiety is strongly correlated with how severe patients perceive their symptoms. This confirms that psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), are often more effective in achieving lasting relief than devices that focus solely on physical stimulation.
Multidisciplinary approaches: An evidence-based strategy for Tinnitus
Recent reviews and meta-analyses emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to tinnitus, including a combination of CBT, mindfulness, and psychoeducation. In a systematic review by Hoare et al. (2011), it was concluded that a combination of medical and psychological approaches yields better results for tinnitus relief than purely physical interventions. Prof. Rilana Cima, a leading expert in tinnitus research, confirms this in her own studies, showing that CBT and other psychological treatments can reduce the perceived burden of tinnitus—something devices like Lenire cannot achieve.
Critical voices from Antwerp
Belgian researchers have also voiced skepticism about devices like Lenire. Research teams in Antwerp, such as those led by Gilles and Jacquemin, highlight the lack of compelling evidence supporting the efficacy of such devices. They emphasize the importance of a broader, science-based approach to tinnitus that considers both physiological and psychological aspects.
Gilles and Jacquemin point out that devices like Lenire attempt to influence only one dimension of tinnitus while ignoring essential psychological factors such as anxiety and emotional distress. Their research supports the idea that a multidisciplinary approach is often more effective in the long term, aligning with findings from Cima and other tinnitus treatment experts.
The financial and emotional burden of false hope
Another alarming aspect of devices like Lenire is their high cost. The high price not only gives these devices a premium appearance but also strengthens the placebo effect. The more expensive the treatment, the higher the expectation of success. As a result, patients sometimes spend thousands of euros—often without reimbursement—hoping that this will be their breakthrough, only to later regret it when the promised relief does not materialize.
This disappointment extends beyond financial loss; it is also an emotional burden. Every failed attempt erodes trust in real solutions, leaving patients feeling increasingly isolated and disillusioned. The repeated cycle of raised and crushed hopes can make them hesitant to seek out treatments that are actually effective.
The power of image and commercial interests
Behind devices like Lenire lie not only high costs but also strong commercial interests and a carefully crafted image. For many companies in the medical device industry, it is tempting to market devices as revolutionary solutions. By using high-tech designs, expensive marketing, and catchy slogans, they create the illusion of a professional and advanced treatment—exactly what tinnitus sufferers, in their desperation, are drawn to. This image capitalizes on the vulnerability of people searching for relief, making them more likely to overestimate the effectiveness of the device.
Commercial forces know exactly how to play on these emotions. The premium look and hopeful promises make devices like Lenire attractive, despite their weak scientific foundation. This is a clever manipulation of patients' trust, fostering the illusion that these devices offer something unique. Unfortunately, for many, it turns out to be an expensive and disappointing mistake.
The need for honesty and critical awareness
This is precisely why it is crucial to remain critical and warn the public about the misleading marketing surrounding devices like Lenire. We cannot sit idly by as these devices are promoted without solid scientific backing. People deserve transparency—not just about the potential benefits of a treatment but also about its limitations.
Only by being open and honest about what these devices can and cannot do can we prevent patients from suffering unnecessary emotional and financial distress.
This calls for a strong counter-narrative. We must ensure that the public discourse around devices like Lenire does not dominate the conversation, as tinnitus patients deserve solutions that genuinely work.
By staying critical and keeping the discussion alive, we can help break the unrealistic expectations created by misleading marketing.
References:
Waber, R. L., Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2008). Commercial Features of Placebo and Therapeutic Efficacy: A Study on Price and the Placebo Effect. Journal of the American Medical Association.
Geers, A. L., et al. (2013). Influence of placebo expectations on health outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
Andersson, G., & McKenna, L. (2006). The role of cognition in tinnitus. Acta Oto-Laryngologica.
Zöger, S., Svedlund, J., & Holgers, K. M. (2006). Psychiatric disorders in tinnitus patients without severe hearing impairment: 5-year follow-up. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
Hoare, D. J., et al. (2011). Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) for tinnitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Cima, R. F., et al. (2012). Specialized treatment based on cognitive behavior therapy versus usual care for tinnitus: a randomized controlled trial. The Lancet.
Gilles, A., & Jacquemin, L. (2018). Evaluating treatment options in tinnitus: Emphasis on psychological and multidisciplinary approaches.
Comments