Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais

Objective: To evaluate the effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and non-AMD in Thais, and compare with the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) and Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) study. Ma...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mansing Ratanasukon, Siriraksa Visaetsilpanonta, Prut Hanutsaha, Direk Patikulsila
Format: Journal
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=35848940728&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61259
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-61259
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-612592018-09-10T04:07:35Z Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais Mansing Ratanasukon Siriraksa Visaetsilpanonta Prut Hanutsaha Direk Patikulsila Medicine Objective: To evaluate the effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and non-AMD in Thais, and compare with the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) and Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) study. Material and Method: The authors prospectively evaluated all data of 51 eyes of 51 patients who had undergone PDT and accomplished a 1-year follow up. The assessments were divided into two categories: group 1 included three subsets of AMD, and group 2 was non-AMD. The first group classified into three subgroups: group1A: AMD with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and TAP/VIP compatible with recommendation guidelines characteristics, group 1B: AMD with subfoveal CNV and TAP/VIP incompatible, and group 1C: AMD with non-subfoveal CNV. The measurement outcomes comprised of the baseline characteristics, change in visual acuity, and number of treatments. Results: Thirty-eight eyes had CNV-related AMD and 13 eyes were non-AMD. At the 12-month examination, the mean visual acuity change in group 1A, 1B, 1C had increased 0.19 (p = 0.077), 0.14 (p = 0.076), and 0.24 (p = 0.003), respectively. The number of treatments was 1.8 in group 1A, 2.3 in group 1B, and 1.5 in group 1C. Conclusion: PDT is beneficial to Thai patients with AMD at first year, even if they were not compatible with TAP/VIP criteria. 2018-09-10T04:07:35Z 2018-09-10T04:07:35Z 2007-10-01 Journal 01252208 01252208 2-s2.0-35848940728 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=35848940728&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61259
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
topic Medicine
spellingShingle Medicine
Mansing Ratanasukon
Siriraksa Visaetsilpanonta
Prut Hanutsaha
Direk Patikulsila
Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais
description Objective: To evaluate the effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and non-AMD in Thais, and compare with the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) and Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) study. Material and Method: The authors prospectively evaluated all data of 51 eyes of 51 patients who had undergone PDT and accomplished a 1-year follow up. The assessments were divided into two categories: group 1 included three subsets of AMD, and group 2 was non-AMD. The first group classified into three subgroups: group1A: AMD with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and TAP/VIP compatible with recommendation guidelines characteristics, group 1B: AMD with subfoveal CNV and TAP/VIP incompatible, and group 1C: AMD with non-subfoveal CNV. The measurement outcomes comprised of the baseline characteristics, change in visual acuity, and number of treatments. Results: Thirty-eight eyes had CNV-related AMD and 13 eyes were non-AMD. At the 12-month examination, the mean visual acuity change in group 1A, 1B, 1C had increased 0.19 (p = 0.077), 0.14 (p = 0.076), and 0.24 (p = 0.003), respectively. The number of treatments was 1.8 in group 1A, 2.3 in group 1B, and 1.5 in group 1C. Conclusion: PDT is beneficial to Thai patients with AMD at first year, even if they were not compatible with TAP/VIP criteria.
format Journal
author Mansing Ratanasukon
Siriraksa Visaetsilpanonta
Prut Hanutsaha
Direk Patikulsila
author_facet Mansing Ratanasukon
Siriraksa Visaetsilpanonta
Prut Hanutsaha
Direk Patikulsila
author_sort Mansing Ratanasukon
title Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais
title_short Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais
title_full Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais
title_fullStr Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais
title_full_unstemmed Photodynamic therapy for AMD and non-AMD patients: One-year results in Thais
title_sort photodynamic therapy for amd and non-amd patients: one-year results in thais
publishDate 2018
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=35848940728&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61259
_version_ 1681425587350011904