I could post other, more detailed statistical findings on the results of
PDT and some of the other recent treatments for macula degen. (And
there's even more new stuff in development to work with, or instead of
PDT.)  I've attended a number of presentations on the subject and a
research site, including some of my patients is right here in town.
There's quite a bit of data and, as you might imagine, you can interpret
the findings to quantify successful treatment in a number of ways. To be
brief, the ability of the treatment to (1) reverse the damage, (2) halt
the damage and stablize the vision, (3) limit the damage and slow down
the progress and vision loss, or (4) have little or no effect depends
upon a number of specific factors. We understand most, but not all of
the issues---but that means we can identify good patient candidates and
not so good patient candidates and people who would not benefit at all.

At least not yet.

The bottom line is that PDT is not a perfect answer and the numbers
really aren't all that great, but that's not always the information that
is meaningful.  What is, is that if you're someone who is inevitably
loosing the ability to see and the treatment has a reasonable chance of
preserving what vision remains, then 30-40% chance of stablizing the
disease is a great number. 70-80% is better and for some people, that's
the correct number.  Sadly, for others, it's close to zero.

Anyway, if we can save some vision and improve the quality of life, no
matter for how much time remaining, that's pretty exciting. Also, one
person's concept of "good vision" is not that of another's.

You need also to keep in mind that this is a very new medicine and, as
we learn more about the underlying causes of mac degen and the resulting
visible tissue damage, treatment will likely improve.  And that's a good
thing, considering that each year there are more and more older people
and therefore more and more people who develope mac degen, and the
medical industry is seeing, very clearly, big dollar signs.

Hopefully it will cost patients less, too. It *is* a big expense. (And
don't forget nutritional supplement therapy.)

--LB
 

  `                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
`````