Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

nasdaq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#31

Post by mhb »

sokoloff wrote: post #11
dkarl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance doesn't cover it, so some doctors don't bother with it. I was caught by surprise when I tried out my wife's ophthalmologist. Dilation only, no option for a digital scan, my choices were get dilated or get out. I'm not going back there.

That's exactly consistent with what they said to me. "Insurance covers the dilation procedure; the digital imaging is better but you have to pay $X [$40 or $49, I forget] out of pocket." "Which one is medically better?" "Digital." "Let's do that one." Even as they did the multiple exposures, I was wondering if I was getting suckered, but when the doctor showed me what she could see in the digital images and that she…

You compared that with what they could see with the prehistoric method?

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#32

Post by slj »

thedanbob wrote: post #7
sokoloff wrote: post #3

At my most recent eye exam, I paid an extra $40 or so to have some kind of digital retinal imaging done (no dilation required) and the amount of detail the doctor could see was phenomenal to my eye (no pun intended). They were perhaps making more money on it, but seemed to push it as medically superior to the dilation and manual inspection process.

I'm surprised, I thought the digital imaging was the standard now. The eye doctor I've been going to for several years now only does the new method and doesn't even offer dilation afaik.

Here in AUS, essentially every single optometrist requires digital imaging. Oh, and it’s subsidised by the government.You don’t pay a single cent for a prescription. Bonus: If you have private optical health insurance it will likely cover two pairs of prescription glasses per year. Not too bad a deal if you ask me!

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#33

Post by mhb »

bdcravens wrote: post #30
ubermonkey wrote: post #2

There have been "reversal" drops for a while now, right? And with sufficiently dark sunglasses, driving is still not a problem.

You can drive with dilated pupils, but you may have a hard time reading signs or even reading your speedometer.

That's what the pinhole glasses are for.

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#34

Post by burnte »

sokoloff wrote: post #3

At my most recent eye exam, I paid an extra $40 or so to have some kind of digital retinal imaging done (no dilation required) and the amount of detail the doctor could see was phenomenal to my eye (no pun intended). They were perhaps making more money on it, but seemed to push it as medically superior to the dilation and manual inspection process.

I don't even care if it makes them more profit than drops, I'm MUCH more likely to use the digital system rather than drops, so the value is there for me.

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#35

Post by mlyle »

mhb wrote: post #31
sokoloff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly consistent with what they said to me. "Insurance covers the dilation procedure; the digital imaging is better but you have to pay $X [$40 or $49, I forget] out of pocket." "Which one is medically better?" "Digital." "Let's do that one." Even as they did the multiple exposures, I was wondering if I was getting suckered, but when the doctor showed me what she could see in the digital images and that she…

You compared that with what they could see with the prehistoric method?

Even if you can see pretty much the same thing, there's still the benefit of getting comparison images.

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#36

Post by sumtechguy »

sokoloff wrote: post #11
dkarl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance doesn't cover it, so some doctors don't bother with it. I was caught by surprise when I tried out my wife's ophthalmologist. Dilation only, no option for a digital scan, my choices were get dilated or get out. I'm not going back there.

That's exactly consistent with what they said to me. "Insurance covers the dilation procedure; the digital imaging is better but you have to pay $X [$40 or $49, I forget] out of pocket." "Which one is medically better?" "Digital." "Let's do that one." Even as they did the multiple exposures, I was wondering if I was getting suckered, but when the doctor showed me what she could see in the digital images and that she…

For me that 'tracking over the years' was secondary. Having had glasses for years the hours of not having to hide in the dark was a 'shut up take my money' moment.

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#37

Post by rjsw »

Jtsummers wrote: post #22
rjsw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need your eyes dilated? It isn't something that is done in the UK.

My vision is very, very bad. Eye dilation is to allow the doctor to examine the retinas, in my case. Though as others have pointed out they're doing more digital imaging these days and that doesn't require dilation. My doctor now dilates my eyes every other year. If your vision is normal (or not as abnormal as mine) and you aren't at high risk of various eye health issues (diabetic, family history, high blood pressur…

My eye checks every other year have had a retinal exam component for as long as I can remember, never been given any drugs to affect the pupil diameter though.

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#38

Post by Jtsummers »

rjsw wrote: post #37
Jtsummers wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My vision is very, very bad. Eye dilation is to allow the doctor to examine the retinas, in my case. Though as others have pointed out they're doing more digital imaging these days and that doesn't require dilation. My doctor now dilates my eyes every other year. If your vision is normal (or not as abnormal as mine) and you aren't at high risk of various eye health issues (diabetic, family history, high blood pressur…

My eye checks every other year have had a retinal exam component for as long as I can remember, never been given any drugs to affect the pupil diameter though.

That was what they did for me until my eyes exceeded about -8 or -9 diopters of correction (late high school, not sure where it was exactly when they started dilating them but in that range), then they introduced dilation as a regular thing.

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#39

Post by sokoloff »

mhb wrote: post #31
sokoloff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly consistent with what they said to me. "Insurance covers the dilation procedure; the digital imaging is better but you have to pay $X [$40 or $49, I forget] out of pocket." "Which one is medically better?" "Digital." "Let's do that one." Even as they did the multiple exposures, I was wondering if I was getting suckered, but when the doctor showed me what she could see in the digital images and that she…

You compared that with what they could see with the prehistoric method?

Obviously, I don't have any idea what she could see using the old method. However, when she pulled up the image on the screen and walked me through what she was seeing, I could judge from her overall excitement in showing me the details and from what I was able to see, that she thought it was a great tool and I had no reason to doubt and some reasons to believe.

Re: Viatris gets FDA nod for pupil dilation reversal agent

#40

Post by CaliforniaKarl »

mlyle wrote: post #35
mhb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You compared that with what they could see with the prehistoric method?

Even if you can see pretty much the same thing, there's still the benefit of getting comparison images.

That cannot be understated. I've got something in one eye, which shows up on both digital scan and normal dilation. But the archives of the digital scans makes it possible to clearly see if it is changing over time.
Post reply on HN