[snip]
>> How does the fact that it is intravenously administered make it look
>> more *promising* than if it were administered via intraocular
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>stress. I know that even when my eye doctor wants to put eye drops in
>my eye, I can feel my blood pressure sky rocket.
Relax... It's just eyedrops... :)
Here's a typical example and lines I use:
*Female patient freaking out from eyedrops*
Me: Do you have any children?
Patient: Yes. 3.
Me: So you've gone through childbirth and you are stressing
out with me putting a few eyedrops in your eyes :) ???
Many times that gets them to relax a little. I have to think up a
good on to use on my male patients (besides driving a knuckle into
their head :^O ).
Same thing goes when I do tonometry, scleral indentation, gonioscopy,
contact lens application/removal, lacrimal dilation/probing, foreign
body removal, etc.
>So my answer to you is that aside from the efficacy of Evizon which is
>good and hasadvantages that other treatments don't have, it has been
>demonstrated to be safer than other treatments and that safety
>profile, in and of itself, makes Evizon a very promising treatment for
>Wet AMD. Thanks for the question.
I guess we are just talking semantics.
I understood how many patients would prefer an IV injection versus an
intraocular, I just don't/didn't understand how that, in and of
itself, makes it more **promising**.
Promising, to me, is based on its potential or real efficacy, not the
method of delivery.
But I get what you were getting at now.