Amblyopia Outcomes Through Clinical Trials and Practice Measurement: Room for Improvement: The LXXVII Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture

Binocular treatment for amblyopia: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The treatment of unilateral amblyopia involves refractive adaptation, occlusion therapy or penalization with atropine drops. However, in recent years, the use of binocular digital therapy has shown promising results. Aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of binocular treatment of amblyopia compared with standard treatments or placebo therapy.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance to PRISMA statement. Electronic literature was thoroughly searched for articles published between 2013 and May 2024, in the following electronic database; Pubmed, CENTRAL, MedlinePlus, Medline Europe, PLOS, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov. The review comprised randomized control trials (RCTs) including patients with unilateral amblyopia, who received binocular therapy or standard amblyopia or placebo treatment for more than two weeks and who had visual acuity assessment pre- and post-treatment. Only articles written in English were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Rob2 tool, while study quality was evaluated with the modified Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs, including 1769 patients, were incorporated into this systematic review. Twelve different types of binocular amblyopia treatments were identified and categorized into two main types. The first type involves the presentation of low-contrast images in the fellow eye, including stimuli presented only in the amblyopic eye. The second type combines this approach with complementary dichoptic deficits in the images presented to both eyes to encourage their simultaneous use.

CONCLUSION

Binocular amblyopia treatment has shown promising results in addressing unilateral anisometropic, strabismic or mixed type of amblyopia. Nevertheless, further randomized controlled trials are essential to establish the exact dosage, type and duration of binocular therapy as a standard component of amblyopia care.

Leveraging neural plasticity for the treatment of amblyopia

Amblyopia is a form of visual cortical impairment that arises from abnormal visual experience early in life. Most often, amblyopia is a unilateral visual impairment that can develop as a result of strabismus, anisometropia, or a combination of these conditions that result in discordant binocular experience. Characterized by reduced visual acuity and impaired binocular function, amblyopia places a substantial burden on the developing child. Although frontline treatment with glasses and patching can improve visual acuity, residual amblyopia remains for most children. Newer binocular-based therapies can elicit rapid recovery of visual acuity and may also improve stereoacuity in some children. Nevertheless, for both treatment modalities full recovery is elusive, recurrence of amblyopia is common, and improvements are negligible when treatment is administered at older ages. Insights derived from animal models about the factors that govern neural plasticity have been leveraged to develop innovative treatments for amblyopia. These novel therapies exhibit efficacy to promote recovery, and some are effective even at ages when conventional treatments fail to yield benefit. Approaches for enhancing visual system plasticity and promoting recovery from amblyopia include altering the balance between excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms, reversing the accumulation of proteins that inhibit plasticity, and harnessing the principles of metaplasticity. Although these therapies have exhibited promising results in animal models, their safety and ability to remediate amblyopia need to be evaluated in humans.

Non-invasive brain stimulation and vision rehabilitation: a clinical perspective

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques allow targeted modulation of brain regions and have emerged as a promising tool for vision rehabilitation. This review presents an overview of studies that have examined the use of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for improving vision and visual functions. A description of the proposed neural mechanisms that underpin non-invasive brain stimulation effects is also provided. The clinical implications of non-invasive brain stimulation in vision rehabilitation are examined, including their safety, effectiveness, and potential applications in specific conditions such as amblyopia, post-stroke hemianopia, and central vision loss associated with age-related macular degeneration. Additionally, the future directions of research in this field are considered, including the need for larger and more rigorous clinical trials to validate the efficacy of these techniques. Overall, this review highlights the potential for brain stimulation techniques as a promising avenue for improving visual function in individuals with impaired vision and underscores the importance of continued research in this field.

Vision screening and refraction of Greenlandic schoolchildren

PURPOSE

To estimate the prevalence of amblyopia and refractive errors among 6-year-old children in Greenland and to assess the impact of incorporating autorefraction, stereoacuity and near visual acuity testing into vision screening.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 517 children (238 girls and 279 boys) from 21 locations in Greenland were screened using HOTV charts for distance and near visual acuity (VA), stereoacuity test and non-cycloplegic autorefraction. Referral criteria for further ophthalmological examination included a VA of ≥0.2 logMAR on the worse-seeing eye or an interocular VA difference of ≥2 lines.

RESULTS

Initial screening identified amblyopia (defined as VA of ≥0.3 logMAR) in 7% (unilateral) and 3% (bilateral) of children. However, subsequent ophthalmological examinations confirmed amblyopia in under 40% of referrals. Significant interocular VA differences were found in 9%. The prevalence of refractive errors at the screening was 3% for myopia (≤-0.5 dioptres), 10% for hyperopia (>+2.0 dioptres) and 14% for astigmatism (≤-1.00 dioptres), while the corresponding prevalences at the ophthalmological examination were 4% for myopia, 8% for hyperopia and 6% for astigmatism. Combining screening measurements increased the positive predictive values, thereby enhancing screening accuracy. Specifically, the incorporation of autorefraction or stereoacuity with distance VA demonstrated to be the most effective combination. Six percent of the children were prescribed glasses after the screening procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first visual profile of Greenlandic schoolchildren. Incorporating autorefraction, stereoacuity and near visual acuity in vision screenings enhanced the efficacy of detection of vision anomalies. Although this may lead to more false positives, accurate screening is crucial in regions with limited ophthalmological resources.

SPEctacle Correction for the TReatment of Amblyopia (SPECTRA): study protocol for a prospective non-randomised interventional trial in adults with anisometropic/mixed mechanism amblyopia

INTRODUCTION

Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental vision disorder typically affecting one eye, resulting in compromised binocular function. While evidence-based treatments exist for children, there are no widely accepted treatments for adults. This trial aims to assess the efficacy of appropriate optical treatment in improving vision and visual functions in adults with amblyopia. This is hypothesised to significantly improve visual acuity of the amblyopic eye and other visual functions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SPEctacle Correction for the TReatment of Amblyopia is a prospective non-randomised interventional trial. The following criteria for amblyopia will be used: best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the amblyopic eye of 0.3 to 1.0 (inclusive) logMAR VA and in the fellow eye, 0.1 logMAR or better, with an interocular VA difference of ≥2 logMAR lines. Eligible participants aged 18-39 will receive full/near-full optical treatment requiring wear for at least half their waking hours for the trial duration. A difference of ≥1.00D spherical equivalent between a participant's current refractive correction and the study prescription is required for eligibility. Primary outcome is the change in amblyopic eye BCVA from baseline to 24-week postenrolment. Secondary outcomes include distance and near VA of both eyes, stereoacuity, contrast sensitivity, interocular suppression, angle of strabismus and fixation stability measured at monthly intervals. Visual evoked potentials will also be measured at baseline, week 12 and week 24. Treatment compliance and quality of life for all participants will be monitored.Analyses comparing baseline and week 24 will utilise pairwise comparisons. Linear mixed models will be fitted to the data for measures taken monthly. This allows estimates and inferences to be drawn from the coefficients of the model, while handling missing data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Human ethics approval was obtained from the respective ethics board of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HSEARS20210915002) and the University of Waterloo (#44235). The study protocol will conform to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05394987; clinicaltrials.org.

Bifocal use in hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia treated with atropine: a proof-of-concept randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of bifocal wearing in the amblyopic eye when atropine is used in the sound eye for the treatment of hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia.

METHODS

Children 4-8 years old were randomly assigned to bifocal + atropine (n = 16) or only atropine (control, n = 19) groups of treatment in a proof-of-concept study. Measurements included visual acuity (logMAR), prism and cover test, stereoacuity (Randot preschool or Randot circles), contrast sensitivity (MARS test), accommodation (Grand Seiko WAM5500 and dynamic retinoscopy), retinoscopic and subjective refraction, before starting treatment and at 6 months, except accommodation, which was remeasured at 9-11 months. Main outcome measure was change in logMAR lines of visual acuity, and secondary outcome measures were change in stereoacuity and contrast sensitivity in the amblyopic eye, at 6 months.

RESULTS

Improvement in visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was significantly better (p = 0.04) in the atropine plus bifocal (3.3 ± 0.9 logMAR lines) than in the atropine only group (2.6 ± 0.8 logMAR lines), whereas change in stereoacuity and contrast sensitivity was not significantly different between the two groups. Differences in accommodative gain, which was impaired in the amblyopic compared to the sound eye, before treatment, decreased after treatment, in the atropine group (0.62 ± 0.16 vs 0.79 ± 0.2, p = 0.3), and atropine + bifocal group (0.69 ± 0.15 vs 0.82 ± 0.2, p = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of bifocal lens add in the amblyopic eye of children with hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia, treated by atropine penalization, is beneficial in the follow-up period of 6 months.

Short-term homeostatic visual neuroplasticity in adolescents after two hours of monocular deprivation

In healthy adults with normal vision, temporary deprivation of one eye's visual experience produces transient yet robust homeostatic plasticity effects, where the deprived eye becomes more dominant. This shift in ocular dominance is short-lived and compensatory. Previous work shows that monocular deprivation decreases resting state gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA; inhibitory neurotransmitter) levels in visual cortex, and that those with the greatest reduction in GABA have stronger shifts due to monocular deprivation. Components of the GABAergic system in visual cortex vary with age (early childhood, early teen years, ageing); hence if GABA is critical to homeostatic plasticity within the visual system, adolescence may be a key developmental period where differences in plasticity manifest. Here we measured short-term visual deprivation effects on binocular rivalry in 24 adolescents (aged 10-15 years) and 23 young adults (aged 20-25 years). Despite differences in baseline features of binocular rivalry (adolescents showed more mixed percept p < 0.001 and a tendency for faster switching p = 0.06 compared to adults), deprived eye dominance increased (p = 0.01) similarly for adolescents and adults after two hours of patching. Other aspects of binocular rivalry - time to first switch (heralding the onset of rivalry) and mixed percept - were unaltered by patching. These findings suggest that binocular rivalry after patching can be used as a behavioral proxy for experience-dependent visual cortical plasticity in adolescents in the same way as adults, and that homeostatic plasticity to compensate for temporarily reduced visual input is established and effective by adolescence.

Amblyopia and the whole child

Amblyopia is a disorder of neurodevelopment that occurs when there is discordant binocular visual experience during the first years of life. While treatments are effective in improving visual acuity, there are significant individual differences in response to treatment that cannot be attributed solely to difference in adherence. In this considerable variability in response to treatment, we argue that treatment outcomes might be optimized by utilizing deep phenotyping of amblyopic deficits to guide alternative treatment choices. In addition, an understanding of the broader knock-on effects of amblyopia on developing visually-guided skills, self-perception, and quality of life will facilitate a whole person healthcare approach to amblyopia.

Multivariable Analyses of Amblyopia Treatment Outcomes from a Clinical Data Registry

PURPOSE

To present multivariable analyses of factors associated with amblyopia treatment success using outcomes from a clinical registry.

DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

PARTICIPANTS

New patients 3 to 12 years of age being enrolled in the registry from 2013 to 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The IRIS-50 is an outcome measure for amblyopia treatment developed by the American Academy of Ophthalmology for use with data in the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry. The measure specifications include unilateral amblyopia associated with strabismus, refractive error, or both.

METHODS

Clinical care prescribed by the ophthalmologist.

RESULTS

Eighteen thousand eight hundred forty-one children 3 to 7 years of age were eligible for IRIS-50, with 77.3% successful. Nine thousand seven hundred sixty-two children 8 to 12 years of age were eligible, with 55.5% successful. For the younger age group, multivariable analyses found that odds ratios (ORs) for success were significantly lower for Black children (0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.83) compared with White children. Medicaid insurance was associated independently with significantly lower success (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60-0.71). Among older children, Black children were less likely to be treated successfully (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96) compared with White children, whereas Hispanic children showed an increased chance of success (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31). Medicaid insurance for the older children also was associated with a decreased chance of success (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Amblyopia treatment outcomes measured by IRIS-50 were significantly poorer for Black children and those with Medicaid insurance 3 to 12 years of age. Disparate health outcomes demonstrated for these two factors emphasize the need to develop and test strategies to improve treatment outcomes for these children.

Association of Neighborhood Child Opportunity Index with presenting visual acuity in amblyopic children

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the use of a novel measure of neighborhood quality, the Child Opportunity Index (COI), for investigating health disparities in pediatric ophthalmology.

METHODS

This study included children 2-12 years of age from a registry of patients diagnosed with amblyopia at an urban pediatric hospital between 2010 and 2014. Children previously treated for amblyopia were excluded. Patient demographics, residential addresses, and logMAR visual acuities were collected. The association between visual acuity at presentation and COI was examined using linear mixed-effects models adjusting for individual-level factors, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type.

RESULTS

This study included 1,050 amblyopic children, of whom 317 (37%) were non-White and 149 (19%) were Hispanic; 461 (44%) had public insurance. Regarding residence, 129 (12%) lived in areas of very low opportunity (COI <20); 489 (47%) in areas of very high opportunity (COI ≥80). Children residing in the lowest opportunity neighborhoods correctly identified approximately two fewer letters at presentation with their better-seeing eye compared with children from the highest opportunity neighborhoods after adjusting for individual-level factors (-0.0090 logMAR per 20 unit increase in COI; 95% CI, -0.0172 to -0.0008; P = 0.031). No difference was appreciated in the worse-seeing eye.

CONCLUSIONS

Amblyopic children residing in communities with low neighborhood opportunity had slightly worse visual acuity in the better-seeing eye at presentation. Although statistically significant in the better-seeing eye, the two-letter difference attributable to neighborhood environment may not be clinically significant, and the impact of this disparity on treatment outcomes deserves further investigation.

Recent Treatment Advances in Amblyopia

Occlusion therapy has a long history as the gold standard treatment for amblyopia. Over the past two decades, large multicenter randomized controlled trials and objective dose-monitoring studies have characterized the effects of refractive correction, patching, and atropine penalization, providing insights into the impact of factors such as age and treatment dose. More recent approaches, whose development has been accelerated by advances in technology, are designed to provide different stimulation to the amblyopic eye and the fellow eye. This review explores a variety of such dichoptic approaches, categorized according to whether they primarily feature requisite use of the amblyopic eye in the face of fellow-eye masking, integration of visual information from both eyes, or reduction of stimulus salience in the fellow eye. It is still unclear whether dichoptic treatments are superior to traditional, low-cost treatment methods or whether their therapeutic mechanisms are fundamentally different from those of established treatments. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Vision Science, Volume 8 is September 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

A Randomized Trial of Binocular Dig Rush Game Treatment for Amblyopia in Children Aged 4 to 6 Years

SIGNIFICANCE

Binocular treatment for unilateral amblyopia is an emerging treatment that requires evaluation through a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity (VA) in children aged 4 to 6 years treated with the dichoptic binocular iPad (Apple, Cupertino, CA) game, Dig Rush (not yet commercially available; Ubisoft, Montreal, Canada), plus continued spectacle correction versus continued spectacle correction alone.

METHODS

Children (mean age, 5.7 years) were randomly assigned to home treatment for 8 weeks with the iPad game (prescribed 1 h/d, 5 d/wk [n = 92], or continued spectacle correction alone [n = 90]) in a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Before enrollment, children wearing spectacles were required to have at least 16 weeks of wear or no improvement in amblyopic-eye VA (<0.1 logMAR) for at least 8 weeks. Outcome was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 4 weeks (primary) and 8 weeks (secondary) assessed by masked examiner.

RESULTS

A total of 182 children with anisometropic (63%), strabismic (16%; <5∆ near, simultaneous prism and cover test), or combined-mechanism (20%) amblyopia (20/40 to 20/200; mean, 20/63) were enrolled. After 4 weeks, mean amblyopic VA improved by 1.1 logMAR lines with binocular treatment and 0.6 logMAR lines with spectacles alone (adjusted difference, 0.5 lines; 95.1% confidence interval [CI], 0.1 to 0.9). After 8 weeks, results (binocular treatment: mean amblyopic-eye VA improvement, 1.3 vs. 1.0 logMAR lines with spectacles alone; adjusted difference, 0.3 lines; 98.4% CI, -0.2 to 0.8 lines) were inconclusive because the CI included both zero and the pre-defined difference in mean VA change of 0.75 logMAR lines.

CONCLUSIONS

In 4- to 6-year-old children with amblyopia, binocular Dig Rush treatment resulted in greater improvement in amblyopic-eye VA for 4 weeks but not 8 weeks. Future work is required to determine if modifications to the contrast increment algorithm or other aspects of the game or its implementation could enhance the treatment effect.