Full macular translocation versus photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year results of a prospective, controlled, randomised pilot trial (FMT-PDT). A randomized controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of radiation therapy in the control of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: radiation versus observation. Oral versus high-dose pulse corticosteroids for problematic infantile hemangiomas: a randomized, controlled trial.
The purpose of this study was to compare full macular translocation (FMT) with photodynamic therapy (PDT) in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
                In a prospective, randomised, non-masked, mono-center, pilot-trial, 50 eyes of 50 patients were assigned to either FMT or PDT. Baseline and control examinations in 3-monthly intervals over a 12-month period included standardized protocol refraction, visual acuity testing and fluorescein angiography. Primary outcome measurements were made to establish the change in distant visual acuity from the baseline to the 12-month examination. The statistical analyses were carried out on the intent-to-treat principle.
                The improvement of one or more ETDRS lines was 56% (14/25) of the eyes in the FMT and 16% (4/25) of the eyes in the PDT arm (P = 0.007). Twenty eyes (80%) in the FMT and 16 eyes (64%) in the PDT group had less than three ETDRS lines of vision loss (P = 0.35). Retinal detachment (six eyes) and diplopia (five patients) were recorded in the FMT group. None of the eyes treated in the FMT group had phtysis.
                This pilot study showed that no statistically significant difference existed between the FMT and PDT in terms of the vision loss of less than three ETDRS lines in eyes with neovascular AMD. The chance of vision improvement was significantly higher for the patients in the FMT group. However, in the era of promising therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular AMD, FMT should not be offered as a standard primary procedure for neovascular AMD. The results of several pilot studies concerning radiation therapy for age-related subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) have been published recently. Although positive treatment results have been described, it is not known whether this therapy alters the natural course of eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in which radiation therapy was compared with observation in patients with subfoveal neovascular AMD.
                Seventy-four patients with a recent drop in central vision due to subfoveal age-related CNV were randomized to either radiation treatment or observation. Patients with either classic, occult or mixed type CNV were included. Eyes in the treatment group received a radiation dose of 24 Gy in four fractions of 6 Gy. Evaluation of data concerning visual acuity (VA) and fluorescein angiography occurred at 3, 6 and 12 months after inclusion.
                At 12 months of follow-up 52.2% of the observation group versus 32.0% of the irradiation group had lost 3 or more lines of VA (P = 0.03, log rank test). More severe visual decline, 6 lines or more, was observed in 40.9% of the observation versus 8.8% in the irradiation group (P = 0.002 using log rank test). At 12 months 39.6% of the observation group and 20.0% of the treatment group had VA of less than 0.1 (P = 0.08, log rank test). The size of the CNV membrane doubled in 25.2% of eyes in the observation group versus 20.0% in the treatment group at least 12 months (P = 0.5, log rank test). No side effects were observed.
                Preservation of VA was significantly better in the treatment group compared with the control group at 12 months. Nevertheless we noted a drop in central vision of 3 or more lines in a substantial proportion of the treatment group. Radiation therapy does not prevent visual loss in all patients with age-related subfoveal CNV, and whether the treatment benefit at 12 months will persist has to be awaited. Oral systemic corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for problematic hemangiomas; however, current information is based on anecdotal experience and retrospective studies. We aimed to determine whether systemic steroids are efficacious in proliferating hemangioma and to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 corticosteroid treatment modalities.
                Twenty patients with problematic hemangiomas of infancy were randomly assigned to either daily oral prednisolone or monthly intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone. Their clinical outcomes (improvement using a visual analog score) and adverse events were compared at 3 months from baseline and 1 year of age. Data on possible surrogate markers of angiogenesis were available for the first 3 months.
                At 3 months, orally treated patients had a median visual analog score of 70 compared with 12 in the intravenous group. This response pattern was similar at the patients' first birthday: 50.0 vs -1.5. Additional treatment beyond 3 months was needed for 65% of the patients (7 in the intravenous and 6 in the oral group). Six of 8 patients with impaired vision at enrollment had an improved function at 1 year (4 patients in the intravenous group and 3 patients in the oral group). Of the 4 surrogate markers of angiogenesis measured (plasma basic fibroblast growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, vascular cellular adhesion molecule 1, endoglin, and urine basic fibroblast growth factor), the only 2 that decreased over time were vascular cellular adhesion molecule 1 and endoglin. Patients in the oral group had a higher rate of adverse effects, such as hypertension (18.6% vs 13.1%), abnormal cortisol (78% vs 60%), and growth retardation.
                Systemic corticosteroids are efficacious in stopping the proliferation of hemangiomas. The oral corticosteroids offered more clinical and biological benefit than the pulse steroids with higher risk of adverse effects.
Based on the included trials, we found no evidence that antiangiogenic steroids prevent visual loss in patients with neovascular AMD. With the emergence of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor modalities, based on evidence summarized in this review, it is unclear what role steroids have in treating patients with neovascular AMD.