PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY

Early day motion 1767, tabled 16 October 2002 by Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat). Signed by 62 members.

That this House is dismayed at new preliminary recommendations issued by NICE on 14th October which would restrict the availability of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration to a small minority of patients with 'pure classic' wet AMD; notes that the recommendations propose that only a tiny minority of the 5,000 people diagnosed each year with the treatable 'predominantly classic' form of wet AMD should only be able to access treatment on the NHS by taking part in long-term clinical trials; believes this would condemn several thousand people each year, who are unlucky enough not to be taking part in the clinical trial, to an impossible choice of paying for private treatment or losing their sight; believes there is ample research evidence to prove the cost-effectiveness of PDT and to support NHS funding to everyone with pure classic and predominantly classic forms of wet AMD; notes that across the rest of Europe and the United States of America those with either pure classic or predominantly classic forms of wet AMD routinely receive PDT treatment; deeply regrets the two-year delay in NICE arriving at a workable decision on this matter which has resulted in avoidable sight loss for up to 15,000 people; calls on the Department of Health to strongly advocate widespread availability of PDT on the NHS for everyone with pure classic or predominantly classic wet AMD in line with the RCO guidelines and its current United Kingdom licensed indication in its next submission to NICE; and urges NICE to adopt this policy in its final appraisal determination.

Signatures by party: Labour 25, Conservative 15, Liberal Democrat 14, Labour/Co-operative 3, Plaid Cymru 3, Scottish National Party 1, UUP 1.