News

Anti-VEGF therapy represents a double-edged sword, it was claimed last week by an internationally renowned cardiologist.

Speaking in London at a briefing organised by Pfizer Ophthalmics, Professor Frank Ruschitzka of Zurich pointed out that the benefits of suppressing VEGF in wet AMD treatment were undeniable. However, it was dangerous for eye care practitioners to always view vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) - the molecule responsible for the new vessel growth in the sight-threatening disease - as a threat.

In cardiology, VEGF is often promoted in dealing with common diseases such as angina, and the knock-on effects of non-selective anti-VEGF treatments, such as Lucentis and Avastin, have yet to be fully established.

In calling for more randomised, controlled trials of the drugs, Ruschitzka also highlighted a 'class myth', namely that even related drugs cannot be assumed to have similar safety profiles. An assumption that Lucentis is safe does not mean that Avastin (its parent drug not licensed for eye treatments) behaves identically.

He finished by pleading for a unified approach to treatments among specialists in ophthalmology and cardiology to ensure the best overall treatment for patients.

At the same meeting, health economist Sorrel Wolowacz explained a model showing Macugen treatment to fall well within the NICE recommendations for cost effectiveness. Steve Winyard, head of public policy at the RNIB, pointed out, however, that the figures that NICE is most likely to employ will not factor in savings related to treatment but rather concentrate purely on treatment costs.

Providing exclusive eye care news, information and educational needs every week, including a FREE CET programme. Subscribe to Optician Print Edition.