Should improving AMD patient join AREDS II ?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com - 13 Jan 2007 20:27 GMT

Six months after cataract surgery and major dietary
changes -- elimination of Niacin (500mg) and addition
of fish oil (1700mg) and Lutein (6mg) -- distortions
have mitigated and the scotoma has dissipated.

Question: Having thus improved does it now make
sense to participate in the AREDS II study and
switch to random supplements and placebos?
(Qualification for the study has been established.)

>From the patient perspective -- not that of medical

science -- what is the choice most likely to
optimize and preserve vision?

Thanks,
H.K.

Reply to this Message

Don W - 14 Jan 2007 00:24 GMT

Herbert.Ko...@gmail.com wrote:

> Six months after cataract surgery and major dietary
> changes -- elimination of Niacin (500mg) and addition
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Thanks,
> H.K.

Wondering how much of the scotoma has disappeared?
Also AREDS 2 has a secondary randomization, are you familiar with that?

Don W.

Reply to this Message

Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com - 14 Jan 2007 03:35 GMT

The outer perimeter of the scotoma is bigger but the interior
has become clearer -- even clear in spots. Quantification is
impossible. Can this be the normal ebb and flow of amd,
as the doc suggests, or an effect of fish oil and lutein?

AREDS 2 has four buckets for two randomized variables.
Other randomizations come from parcel misdelivery, storage
abuses (e.g. mailboxes baking in the sun, &c), and senior
dosing errors. Is yours a nay vote, Don?

-H.K.

> Wondering how much of the scotoma has disappeared?
> Also AREDS 2 has a secondary randomization, are you familiar with that?
>
> Don W.

Reply to this Message

Don W - 14 Jan 2007 06:52 GMT

> The outer perimeter of the scotoma is bigger but the interior
> has become clearer -- even clear in spots. Quantification is
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> -H.K.

Are we talking dry or wet MD?

And why would not a field test track (quantify) this?

Don W.

Reply to this Message

Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com - 14 Jan 2007 16:46 GMT

Dry MD with significant risk of progression to wet in both eyes.
A field test track has not been performed to my knowledge.
Sounds like a good topic for the next exam. Are you ready
to vote yea or nay, Don? :-) I am construing the dearth of
replies as a tacit nay from this group.

Thanks, H.K.

> Are we talking dry or wet MD?
>
> And why would not a field test track (quantify) this?
>
> Don W.

Reply to this Message

Don W - 14 Jan 2007 19:43 GMT

> Dry MD with significant risk of progression to wet in both eyes.
> A field test track has not been performed to my knowledge.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> >
> > Don W.

If you are concerned about the progression or the improvement of this
symptom, why don't you know the status of your last field test, let
alone if you have had one or not?

Don W.

Reply to this Message