AMD dry eye treatment

I would not be interested at the US cost of 6000 dollars for the entire treatment unless this was the only way I needed to keep my drivers license. This 6000 is the going rate. I would not be interested because it does not stop progression of the disease and the functional improvement is temporary but effective to see better on the eye chart. Research:
Here’s what the evidence actually shows so far, stripped of marketing language:
What has been demonstrated
The LIGHTSITE III trial (the pivotal U.S. study that led to FDA authorization in 2024) found:
• About 50% of treated eyes gained ≥5 letters (roughly one line on an eye chart) after repeated cycles.
• No serious safety events.
• Anatomical progression of dry AMD — meaning drusen size, retinal atrophy, etc. — was not significantly changed compared with sham treatment.
• The benefit faded when therapy stopped; ongoing cycles were required to maintain any visual gain.
So, the measurable effect was temporary functional improvement, not structural protection or slowing of atrophy.
What has not been shown
• No proof it halts or slows disease progression.
• None of the Valeda or other PBM trials demonstrated statistically significant delay in geographic atrophy or drusen growth.
• No evidence of lasting benefit beyond treatment window.
• When treatments stopped, vision scores tended to return to baseline.
• No large, independent replication studies yet published; most data come from manufacturer-sponsored trials with modest sample sizes (~100–200 patients).
• No head-to-head comparisons versus standard AREDS2 or other supportive measures.
What experts currently say
• Retina specialists at Mayo, Bascom Palmer, and Duke have generally described PBM/Valeda as promising but unproven.
• The FDA’s own summary frames it as “providing functional improvement in some patients with dry AMD,” not as disease-modifying.
• Professional guidelines (AAO, 2025) do not recommend PBM as a standard-of-care treatment for slowing dry AMD progression.
So:
With intermediate dry AMD I could not pass my state's DMV vision test this year but for the help if an expert optometrist FFAO who was also low vision qualified who fitted me with prism regular eyeglasses or E- scoops at cost of 1300 and my drivers license remains unrestricted and one eye attained 20/40 vision. Bottom line
There is currently no credible evidence that Valeda light therapy slows the biological progression of dry AMD.
At best, it may offer short-term, modest visual function gains in some patients, which vanish when treatments stop. It’s safe, but expensive, time-consuming, and not disease-modifying.
If you’re reading or hearing claims that it “stops progression,” those are not supported by published data or by independent ophthalmology consensus.
Pricing: Because each practice sets their own cost (since insurance coverage is variable/absent), there is a range of quoted cash prices:
• One U.S. provider listed approx. $120 per eye per treatment, with “1-cycle” (9 treatments) costing ~$1,080 per eye, and the full 2-year plan (6 cycles = 54 treatments) ~$6,480. 
• A UK provider listed one round of therapy for both eyes at £1,399 (≈ US$1,700 at current exchange) with subsequent treatments £1,299. 
• Practices emphasize “call our office for pricing” and mention flexible financing given the out-of-pocket nature.
In my state, my retina specialist said it was around 6000 and his office does not offer it because it is not approved by Medicare. He said Medicare approval of photobiomodulation was years away, if ever.
Coverage decisions for Medicare often require: sufficient clinical evidence of long-term benefit, cost-effectiveness, and sometimes a National Coverage Determination (NCD) or Local Coverage Determination (LCD) by regional contractors.
I went from 20/60 to 20/40 with help of a FFA0 and IALVS optometrist- she took 2 hours to help us find base prescription that the E-scoops fit over. An IALVS and FFAO ( only 10 percent of all optometrists are FFAO qualified and it requires much more training and an oral exam ) optometrist is not an ordinary optometrist.
If you ever hear similar sales pressure again, you can ask one polite but disarming question that usually stops it cold:
“Can you show me the peer-reviewed evidence that this treatment slows AMD progression?”
No office pushing Valeda can truthfully provide that yet.

As long as the underlying cause of dry AMD remains unrecognized don't expect any advancements in the slowing or reversal of the condition. It isn't sufficient to say "it's due to the death of retinal cells in the macular area." Of course, but why? What causes them to die off? Live Cell Analysis can give you the answers but the "powers that be" made sure this practice fell into disuse and pressured its practitioners to abandon the procedure.