Programm                 "Degeneration und Regeneration– Grundlagen, Diagnostik und Therapie"

   Hotel Registration
   Welcome address
Beteiligte Gesellschaften
   Societies involved
DOG Information
   DOG Information
Eröffnung des Kongresses
   Opening Ceremony
Ablauf der Tagung 2003
   General overview of congress
Lageplan der Räumlichkeiten
   Map of Congress Center
Wissenschaftliche Themen
   Scientific topics
Wissenschaftliches Programm
   Scientific program
   Poster Presentation
Begleitende Veranstaltungen
   Accompanying program
   Working sessions
   Social program
Allgemeine Informationen
   General Information
   Index of Authors
   Commercial exhibitors

DOG Homepage


Optimization of Photodynamic Therapy: A Randomized Comparison of Shorter Retreatment Intervals and Standard Therapy

Michels S., Schmidt-Erfurth U. for the DFG-PDT study group
Department of Ophthalmology, Luebeck University 

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of shorter retreatment intervals on vision maintenance and improvement in photodynamic therapy (PDT) using verteporfin.
Method: In a prospective, multi-center trial phase 3b, patients with subfoveal predominantly classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were randomized 1:1 to two arms: Group A was retreated in intervals of 2 months, group B was handled according to the recommended standard procedure with 3 month intervals. Treatment indications, parameters and retreatment criteria were identical for both regimen and were consistent with the TAP study protocol. Visual acuity was measured based on ETDRS criteria.
Results: A total number of 200 patients was included, 97 patients were randomized to 2 month retreatment intervals and 103 patients were subject to 3 month intervals. At baseline, both groups were similar in respect to a mean visual acuity of 20/100 (59 letters) and lesion size with 2090 µm (A) and 2200 µm (B). In group A, a mean loss of -4.4 letters was found after 6 months, in group B, the reduction at 6 months was -6.7 letters. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.36). The proportion of patients loosing * 3 lines was 26.7% in group A and 31.9% in group B, which again was not significant. Subgroup analysis indicated a strong influe

Zurück | Back