Supplements that include lutein and zeaxanthin may slow down the worsening of AMD. They have, however, not been shown to prevent the disease. There is not enough evidence to determine if statins have a role in preventing or slowing the progression of AMD. Antiangiogenic steroids such as anecortave acetate and triamcinolone acetonide have shown no evidence in preventing visual loss in people with neovascular AMD.

No medical or surgical treatment is available for this condition.

Macular edema sometimes occurs for a few days or weeks after cataract surgery, but most such cases can be successfully treated with NSAID or cortisone eye drops. Prophylactic use of Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reported to reduce the risk of macular edema to some extent.

In 2010 the US FDA approved the use of Lucentis intravitreal injections for macular edema.

Iluvien, a sustained release intravitreal implant developed by Alimera Sciences, has been approved in Austria, Portugal and the U.K. for the treatment of vision impairment associated with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies. Additional EU country approvals are anticipated.

In 2013 Lucentis by intravitreal injection was approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK for the treatment of macular edema caused by diabetes and/or retinal vein occlusion.

On July 29, 2014, Eylea (aflibercept), an intravitreal injection produced by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., was approved to treat DME in the United States.

There are good results from multiple doses of intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF drugs such as bevacizumab. A 2017 systematic review update found moderate evidence that aflibercept may have advantages in improving visual outcomes over bevacizumab and ranibizumab, after one year. Present recommended treatment for diabetic macular edema is Modified Grid laser photocoagulation combined with multiple injections of anti-VEGF drugs.

A 2014 Cochrane Systematic Review studied the effectiveness of two anti-VEGF treatments, ranibizumab and pegaptanib, on patients suffering from macular edema caused by CRVO. Participants on both treatment groups showed a reduction in macular edema symptoms over six months.

Another Cochrane Review examined the effectiveness and safety of two intravitreal steroid treatments, triamcinolone acetonide and dexamethasone, for patients with from CRVO-ME. The results from one trial showed that patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide were significantly more likely to show improvements in visual acuity than those in the control group, though outcome data was missing for a large proportion of the control group. The second trial showed that patients treated with dexamethasone implants did not show improvements in visual acuity, compared to patients in the control group.

Evidence also suggests that intravitreal injections and implantation of steroids inside the eye can result in improved visual outcomes for patients with chronic or refractory diabetic macular edema.

Triamcinolone is a long acting steroid preparation. When injected in the vitreous cavity, it decreases the macular edema (thickening of the retina at the macula) caused due to diabetic maculopathy, and results in an increase in visual acuity. The effect of triamcinolone is transient, lasting up to three months, which necessitates repeated injections for maintaining the beneficial effect. Best results of intravitreal Triamcinolone have been found in eyes that have already undergone cataract surgery. Complications of intravitreal injection of triamcinolone include cataract, steroid-induced glaucoma and endophthalmitis. A systematic review found evidence that eyes treated with the intravitreal injection of triamcinolone had better visual acuity outcomes compared to eyes treated with macular laser grid photocoagulation, or sham injections.

To date, there is no known effective treatment for the non-proliferative form of macular telangiectasia type 2.

Treatment options are limited. No treatment has to date been shown to prevent progression. The variable course of progression of the disease makes it difficult to assess the efficacy of treatments. Retinal laser photocoagulation is not helpful. In fact, laser therapy may actually enhance vessel ectasia and promote intraretinal fibrosis in these individuals. It is hoped that a better understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease may lead to better treatments.

The use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, which have proven so successful in treating age-related macular degeneration, have not proven to be effective in non-proliferative MacTel type 2. Ranibizumab reduces the vascular leak seen on angiography, although microperimetry suggests that neural atrophy may still proceed in treated eyes.In proliferative stages (neovascularisation), treatment with Anti-VEGF can be helpful.

CNTF is believed to have neuroprotective properties and could thus be able to slow down the progression of MacTel type 2. It has been shown to be safe to use in MacTel patients in a phase 1 safety trial.

Treatment is based on the cause of the retinopathy and may include laser therapy to the retina. Laser photocoagulation therapy has been the standard treatment for many types of retinopathy. Evidence show that laser therapy is generally safe and improves visual symptoms in sickle cell and diabetic retinopathy. In recent years targeting the pathway controlling vessel growth or angiogenesis has been promising. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) seems to play a vital role in promoting neovascularization. Using anti-VEGF drugs (antibodies to sequester the growth factor), research have shown significant reduction in the extent of vessel outgrowth. Evidence supports the use of anti-VEGF antibodies, such as bevacizumab or pegaptanib, seems to improve outcomes when used in conjunction with laser therapy to treat retinopathy of prematurity. The evidence is poorer for treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Use of anti-VEGF drugs did not appear to improve outcomes when compared to standard laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy.

Laser treatment of drusen has been studied. While it is possible to eliminate drusen with this treatment strategy, it has been shown that this fails to reduce the risk of developing the choroidal neovascularisation which causes the blindness associated with age-related macular degeneration.

The most crucial aspect of managing patients with macular telangiectasia is recognition of the clinical signs. This condition is relatively uncommon: hence, many practitioners may not be familiar with or experienced in diagnosing the disorder. MacTel must be part of the differential in any case of idiopathic paramacular hemorrhage, vasculopathy, macular edema or focal pigment hypertrophy, especially in those patients without a history of retinopathy or contributory systemic disease.

Treatment options for macular telangiectasia type 1 include laser photocoagulation, intra-vitreal injections of steroids, or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. Photocoagulation was recommended by Gass and remains to date the mainstay of treatment. It seems to be successful in causing resolution of exudation and VA improvement or stabilization in selected patients. Photocoagulation should be used sparingly to reduce the chance of producing a symptomatic paracentral scotoma and metamorphopsia. Small burns (100–200 μm) of moderate intensity in a grid-pattern and on multiple occasions, if necessary, are recommended. It is unnecessary to destroy every dilated capillary, and, particularly during the initial session of photocoagulation, those on the edge of the capillary-free zone should be avoided.

Intravitreal injections of triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) which have proved to be beneficial in the treatment of macular edema by their anti-inflammatory effect, their downregulation of VEGF production, and stabilization of the blood retinal barrier were reported anecdotally in the management of macular telangiectasia type 1. In two case reports, IVTA of 4 mg allowed a transitory reduction of retinal edema, with variable or no increase in VA. As expected with all IVTA injections, the edema recurred within 3–6 months, and no permanent improvement could be shown.14,15 In general, the effect of IVTA is short-lived and complications, mainly increased intraocular pressure and cataract, limit its use.

Indocyanine green angiography-guided laser photocoagulation directed at the leaky microaneurysms and vessels combined with sub-Tenon’s capsule injection of triamcinolone acetonide has also been reported in a limited number of patients with macular telangiectasia type 1 with improvement or stabilization of vision after a mean follow-up of 10 months.16 Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of this treatment modality.

Recently, intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents, namely bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeted against pro-angiogenic, circulatory VEGF, and ranibizumab, a FDA-approved monoclonal antibody fragment that targets all VEGF-A isoforms, have shown improved visual outcome and reduced leakage in macular edema form diabetes and retinal venous occlusions. In one reported patient with macular telangiectasia type 1, a single intravitreal bevacizumab injection resulted in a marked increase in VA from 20/50 to 20/20, with significant and sustained decrease in both leakage on FA and cystoid macular edema on OCT up to 12 months. It is likely that patients with macular telangiectasia type 1 with pronounced macular edema from leaky telangiectasis may benefit functionally and morphologically from intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, but this warrants further studies.

Today, laser photocoagulation remains mostly effective, but the optimal treatment of macular telangiectasia type 1 is questioned, and larger series comparing different treatment modalities seem warranted. The rarity of the disease however, makes it difficult to assess in a controlled randomized manner.

However, these treatment modalities should be considered only in cases of marked and rapid vision loss secondary to macular edema or CNV. Otherwise, a conservative approach is recommended, since many of these patients will stabilize without intervention.

Several options exist for the treatment of BRVO. These treatments aim for the two of the most significant complications of BRVO, namely macular edema and neovascularization.

- Systemic treatment with oral Aspirin, subcutaneous Heparin, or intravenous thrombolysis have not been shown to be effective treatments for CRVO and for BRVO no reliable clinical trial has been published.

- Laser treatment of the macular area to reduce macular edema is indicated in patients who have 20/40 or worse vision and did not spontaneously improve for at least 3 months (to permit the maximum spontaneous resolution) after the development of the vein occlusion. It is typically administered with the argon laser and is focused on edematous retina within the arcades drained by the obstructed vein and avoiding the foveal avascular zone. Leaking microvascular abnormalities may be treated directly, but prominent collateral vessels should be avoided.

- The second indication of laser treatment is in case of neovascularization. Retinal photocoagulation is applied to the involved retina to cover the entire involved segment, extending from the arcade out to the periphery. Ischemia alone is not an indication for treatment provided that follow-up could be maintained.

- Preservative-free, nondispersive Triamcinolone acetonide in 1 or 4 mg dosage may be injected into the vitreous to treat macular edema but has complications including elevated intraocular pressure and development of cataract. Triamcinolone injection is shown to have similar effect on visual acuity when compared with standard care (Laser therapy), However, the rates of elevated intraocular pressure and cataract formation is much higher with the triamcinolone injection, especially the higher dosage. Intravitreal injection of Dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex; 700,350 μg) is being studied, its effect may last for 180 days. The injection may be repeated however with less pronounced effect. Although the implant was designed to cause less complications, pressure rise and cataract formation is noted with this treatment too.

- Anti-VEGF drugs such as Bevacizumab (Avastin; 1.25 -2.5 mg in 0.05ml) and Ranibizumab (lucentis) injections are being used and investigated. Intravitreal anti-VEGFs have a low incidence of adverse side effects compared with intravitreal corticosteroids, but are currently short acting requiring frequent injections. Anti-VEGF injection may be used for macular edema or neovascularization. The mechanism of action and duration of anti-VEGF effect on macular edema is currently unknown. The intraocular levels of VEGF are increased in eyes with macular edema secondary to BRVO and the elevated VEGF levels are correlated to the degree and severity of the areas of capillary nonperfusion and macular edema.

- Surgery is employed occasionally for longstanding vitreous hemorrhage and other serious complications such as epiretinal membrane and retinal detachment.

- Arteriovenous sheathotomy has been reported in small, uncontrolled series of patients with BRVO. BRVO typically occurs at arteriovenous crossings, where the artery and vein share a common adventitial sheath. In arteriovenous sheathotomy an incision is made in the adventitial sheath adjacent to the arteriovenous crossing and is extended along the membrane that holds the blood vessels in position to the point where they cross, the overlying artery is then separated from the vein.

Telemedicine programs are available that allow primary care clinics to take images using specially designed retinal imaging equipment which can then be shared electronically with specialists at other locations for review. In 2009, Community Health Center, Inc. implemented a telemedicine retinal screening program for low-income patients with diabetes as part of those patients annual visits at the Federally Qualified Health Center.

The treatment method used depends on the cause of the hemorrhage. In most cases, the patient is advised to rest with the head elevated 30–45°, and sometimes to put patches over the eyes to limit movement prior to treatment in order to allow the blood to settle. The patient is also advised to avoid taking medications that cause blood thinning (such as aspirin or similar medications).

The goal of the treatment is to fix the cause of the hemorrhage as quickly as possible. Retinal tears are closed by Laser treatment or cryotherapy, and detached retinas are reattached surgically.

Even after treatment, it can take months for the body to clear all of the blood from the vitreous. In cases of vitreous hemorrhage due to detached retina,long-standing vitreous hemorrhage with a duration of more than 2–3 months, or cases associated with rubeosis iridis or glaucoma, a vitrectomy may be necessary to remove the standing blood in the vitreous.

CNV is conventionally treated with intravitreal injections of angiogenesis inhibitors (also known as "anti-VEGF" drugs) to control neovascularization and reduce the area of fluid below the retinal pigment epithelium. Angiogenesis inhibitors include pegaptanib, ranibizumab and bevacizumab (known by a variety of trade names, such as Macugen, Avastin or Lucentis). These inhibitors slow or stop the formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis), typically by binding to or deactivating the transmission of vascular endothelial growth factor ('VEGF'), a signal protein produced by cells to stimulate formation of new blood vessels. The effectiveness of angiogenesis inhibitors has been shown to significantly improve visual prognosis with CNV, the recurrence rate for these neovascular areas remains high.

CNV may also be treated with photodynamic therapy coupled with a photosensitive drug such as verteporfin (Visudyne). The drug is given intravenously. It is then activated in the eye by a laser light. The drug destroys the new blood vessels, and prevents any new vessels forming by forming thrombi.

Peri-ocular injection of corticosteroids (injection of corticosteroids very close but not into the eye). In resistant cases oral administration of corticosteroids, immunosuppressive drugs, and laser or cryotherapy of the involved area may be indicated.

Steroid implants have been explored as a treatment option for individuals with non-infectious uveitis. Research comparing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implants to standard-of-care treatments (prednisolone with immunosuppressive agents) found that while the steroid implant treatment possibly prevents the recurrence of uveitis, there may be adverse safety outcomes, such as the increased risk for needing cataract surgery and surgery to lower intraocular pressure.

Currently, there is no treatment for the disease. However, ophthalmologists recommend wearing sunglasses and hats outdoors and blue-light blocking glasses when exposed to artificial light sources, such as screens and lights. Tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke should be avoided. Animal studies also show that high doses of vitamin A can be detrimental by building up more lipofuscin toxin. Dietary non-supplemental vitamin A intake may not further the disease progression.

Clinical trials are being conducted with promising early results. The trials may one day lead to treatments that might halt, and possibly even reverse, the effects of Stargardt disease using stem cell therapy, gene therapy, or pharmacotherapy.

The Argus retinal prosthesis, an electronic retinal implant, was successfully fitted to a 67-year-old woman in Italy at the Careggi Hospital in 2016. The patient had a very advanced stage of Stargardt’s disease, and a total absence of peripheral and central visual fields.

Patients with optic disc drusen should be monitored periodically for ophthalmoscopy, Snellen acuity, contrast sensitivity, color vision, intraocular pressure and threshold visual fields. For those with visual field defects optical coherence tomography has been recommended for follow up of nerve fiber layer thickness. Associated conditions such as angioid streaks and retinitis pigmentosa should be screened for. Both the severity of optic disc drusen and the degree of intraocular pressure elevation have been associated with visual field loss. There is no widely accepted treatment for ODD, although some clinicians will prescribe eye drops designed to decrease the intra-ocular pressure and theoretically relieve mechanical stress on fibers of the optic disc. Rarely choroidal neovascular membranes may develop adjacent to the optic disc threatening bleeding and retinal scarring. Laser treatment or photodynamic therapy or other evolving therapies may prevent this complication.

Treatment requires careful consideration of angiographic findings when a choroidal neovascular membrane is suspected which is a condition that responds to treatment. A vitreo-retinal specialist (an ophthalmologist specialized in treatment of retinal diseases) should be consulted for proper management of the case.

Presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) have been successfully treated with laser, anti-vascular endothelial growth factors and photodynamic therapy. Ophthalmologists are using anti-vascular endothelial growth factors to treat AMD and similar conditions since research indicates that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is one of the causes for the growth of the abnormal vessels that cause these conditions.

It is important to distinguish between treatment of the underlying inflammation (PIC) and the treatment of CNV.

2-pronged approach:

Treatment is not always necessary and observation may be appropriate for lesions if they are found in non-sight threatening areas (that is not centrally).

Active lesions of PIC can be treated with corticosteroids taken systemically (tablets) or regionally by injections around the eye (periorbital). It has been argued that treating lesions in this way may help minimise the development of CNV.

The treatment of CNV:

Early treatment is required for this complication. There are several possible treatment methods, but none of these treatments appears to be singly effective for the treatment of CNV.

1. Corticosteroids: systemic or intraocular

2. ‘Second line’ immunosuppressants: There is evidence that combined therapies of steroids and second line immunosuppressants may be important.

3. Surgical excision of the affected area in well selected cases.

4. Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. Examples are bevacizumab (avastin) and ranibizumab. These relatively new drugs are injected into the eye.

5. Photodynamic therapy (PDT): A photosensitive drug is ‘activated’ by strong light. Consideration may be given to combined therapy of PDT and anti VEGF.

6. Laser photocoagulation: This is occasionally used unless the CNV is subfoveal (affecting the central or macular part of the vision). The laser treatment can damage the vision.

The use of the intravitreal anti VEGF agents namely bevacizumab and ranibizumab have been described recently. The current evidence supporting the use of anti-VEGF agents is based on retrospective case studies and could not be described as strong. However, further data from prospective controlled trials are needed before the therapeutic role of anti-VEGF therapy in the uveitis treatment regimen can be fully determined. The anti VEGF agents furthermore have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect.

Thus, treatment of the underlying inflammatory disease should play a central role in the management of uveitic CNV. A two-pronged treatment that focuses on achieving control of inflammation through the use of corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive agents, while treating

complications that arise despite adequate disease control with intravitreal anti-VEGF agents, may be useful.

Regular monitoring is essential to achieve a good outcome. This is because even if there is no active inflammation, there may still be occult CNV which requires treatment to avoid suffering vision loss.

Optic pits themselves do not need to be treated. However, patients should follow up with their eye care professional annually or even sooner if the patient notices any visual loss whatsoever. Treatment of PVD or serous retinal detachment will be necessary if either develops in a patient with an optic pit.

There is no cure for retinitis pigmentosa, but the efficacy and safety of various prospective treatments are currently being evaluated. The efficiency of various supplements, such as Vitamin A, DHA, and Lutein, in delaying disease progression remains an unresolved, yet prospective treatment option. Clinical trials investigating optic prosthetic devices, gene therapy mechanisms, and retinal sheet transplantations are active areas of study in the partial restoration of vision in retinitis pigmentosa patients.

Studies have demonstrated the delay of rod photoreceptor degeneration by the daily intake of 15000 IU (equivalent to 4.5 mg) of vitamin A palmitate; thus, stalling disease progression in some patients. Recent investigations have shown that proper vitamin A supplementation can postpone blindness by up to 10 years (by reducing the 10% loss pa to 8.3% pa) in some patients in certain stages of the disease.

The Argus retinal prosthesis became the first approved treatment for the disease in February 2011, and is currently available in Germany, France, Italy, and the UK. Interim results on 30 patients long term trials were published in 2012. The Argus II retinal implant has also received market approval in the US. The device may help adults with RP who have lost the ability to perceive shapes and movement to be more mobile and to perform day-to-day activities. In June 2013, twelve hospitals in the US announced they would soon accept consultation for patients with RP in preparation for the launch of Argus II later that year. The Alpha-IMS is a subretinal implant involving the surgical implantation of a small image-recording chip beneath the optic fovea. Measures of visual improvements from Alpha-IMS studies require the demonstration of the device's safety before proceeding with clinical trials and granting market approval.

The goal of gene therapy studies is to virally supplement retinal cells expressing mutant genes associated with the retinitis pigmentosa phenotype with healthy forms of the gene; thus, allowing the repair and proper functioning of retinal photoreceptor cells in response to the instructions associated with the inserted healthy gene. Clinical trials investigating the insertion of the healthy RPE65 gene in retinas expressing the LCA2 retinitis pigmentosa phenotype measured modest improvements in vision; however, the degradation of retinal photoreceptors continued at the disease-related rate. Likely, gene therapy may preserve remaining healthy retinal cells while failing to repair the earlier accumulation of damage in already diseased photoreceptor cells. Response to gene therapy would theoretically benefit young patients exhibiting the shortest progression of photoreceptor decline; thus, correlating to a higher possibility of cell rescue via the healthy inserted gene.

Surgeons can remove or peel the membrane through the sclera and improve vision by 2 or more Snellen lines. Usually the vitreous is replaced at the same time with clear (BSS) fluid, in a vitrectomy. Surgery is not usually recommended unless the distortions are severe enough to interfere with daily living, since there are the usual hazards of surgery, infections, and a possibility of retinal detachment. More common complications are high intraocular pressure, bleeding in the eye, and cataracts, which are the most frequent complication of vitrectomy surgery. Many patients will develop a cataract within the first few years after surgery. In fact, the visual distortions and diplopia created by cataracts may sometimes be confused with epiretinal membrane.

The progressive nature of and lack of a definitive cure for retinitis pigmentosa contribute to the inevitably discouraging outlook for patients with this disease. While complete blindness is rare, the patient's visual acuity and visual field will continue to decline as initial rod photoreceptor and later cone photoreceptor degradation proceeds. Possible treatments remain in the research and clinical trial stages; however, treatment studies concerning visual restoration in retinitis pigmentosa prove promising for the future.

Studies indicate that children carrying the disease genotype benefit from presymptomatic counseling in order to prepare for the physical and social implications associated with progressive vision loss. While the psychological prognosis can be slightly alleviated with active counseling the physical implications and progression of the disease depend largely on the age of initial symptom manifestation and the rate of photoreceptor degradation, rather than access to prospective treatments. Corrective visual aids and personalized vision therapy provided by Low Vision Specialists may help patients correct slight disturbances in visual acuity and optimize their remaining visual field. Support groups, vision insurance, and lifestyle therapy are additional useful tools for those managing progressive visual decline.

While nothing currently can be done to stop or reverse the retinal degeneration, there are steps that can be taken to slow the rate of vision loss. UV-blocking sunglasses for outdoors, appropriate dietary intake of fresh fruit and leafy green vegetables, antioxidant vitamin supplements, and regular intake of dietary omega-3 very-long-chain fatty acids are all recommended.

One study found that a dietary supplement of lutein increases macular pigment levels in patients with choroideremia. Over a long period of time, these elevated levels of pigmentation could slow retinal degeneration. Additional interventions that may be needed include surgical correction of retinal detachment and cataracts, low vision services, and counseling to help cope with depression, loss of independence, and anxiety over job loss.

Though there is no treatment for Cone dystrophy, certain supplements may help in delaying the progression of the disease.

The beta-carotenoids, lutein and zeaxanthin, have been evidenced to reduce the risk of developing age related macular degeneration (AMD), and may therefore provide similar benefits to Cone dystrophy sufferers.

Consuming omega-3 fatty acids (docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid) has been correlated with a reduced progression of early AMD, and in conjunction with low glycemic index foods, with reduced progression of advanced AMD, and may therefore delay the progression of cone dystrophy.