Treatment differences for myopic macular degeneration by MDs

[Mariannecambodia]

Hi

I have been diagnosed with myopic macular degeneration. After 18 months of monthly injections my doctor left and I had to go to another. The new doctor used an angiogram and OCT test to tell me my eye was no longer leaking blood and I did not need an injection. Two days later I had my last appointment with my old doctor who, using the same diagnostics, told me my eye was leaking and gave me an injection.

I don't know what to think. The new doctor told me unnecessary injections will thin my retina and do damage. The old doctor told me some retinal practices do not like to buy the lucentis because of the huge upfront cost to their practice.

Anybody have any thoughts? I'm confused!

R

[Macular_1]

Hello Marianne,

Do I take it from your user-name that you live and are being treated in Cambodia?

It is difficult to advise you specifically if you do as we are a UK based charity.

'Wet' myopic macular degeneration is usually treated with 'anti-VEGF' injections of the drugs Lucentis or Eylea (in some countries Avastin is used - it is sometimes used in the UK as well).

The drugs used; Lucentis and Eylea are quite expensive so there could be a cost constraint where you are. It is however rather confusing to have a conflicting diagnosis.

We have a factsheet about myopic macular degeneration which you can request by emailing our helpline on [e-mail]

Please also see our treatments booklet at the following link;

macularsociety.org/sites/de...

Best wishes

Macular Society

[Mariannecambodia in reply to Macular_1]

Thank you for your reply. I'm in the U.S.!

[Ayayay80]

Hi Marianne

Yes, different consultants seem to have different ideas on how and when to give treatment. When I was first dignosed one consultant called it wet AMD and another called it dry even though there was a swelling and some fluid present. I was not given an injection. 4 weeks later, when my vision had deteriorated a course of injections was started. The explanation was that NICE stipulated that visual acuity has to worse than 20/40. I have had treatment ever since.

Also: on one occasion I was told that there was some fluid present again, but it was quite minor. My consultant told me that the photograph had picked it up but that the split lamp would "not" be able to detect a minor leakage. But if an fluerocine angiograph was done then the leakage should not have been missed. Not good!

Unfortunately, cost cutting is more and more experienced, in the UK too.

Good Luck!

[Mariannecambodia]

Thank you. It's good to hear others also have experienced this too.

Marianne