What matters most? Acuity or Duration? What if Opthea was wrong?, page-4

Yes, acuity is really that important. The whole point of this is to preserve vision. Why would you keep injecting someone if there was no visual benefit. If there is an anti VGEF that can do that better and ideally be effective for a longer duration then it's a win for both patient and specialists.

A specialist decides whether to treat the eye or not based on vision and OCT. If someone has Wet AMD and visual outcome was poor (e.g. patient also has geographic atrophy from dry AMD) then there would be no benefit to proceed. If someone is being treated with wet AMD - they monitor the neovasc with an OCT. If OCT shows it's improving then it would subsequently result in improving visual acuity.

So if OPT can do better in preserving visual acuity and duration between treatment is the same as current treatment with Eyelea/Avastin etc. or better then that's huge. If OPT can do a better job but treatment periods are shorter...then it would have to come down to the cost of treatment and if the patient wants to go through with more visits but knowing that vision will be better than all other treatment at the moment.