Treatment of severe amblyopia with weekend atropine: results from 2 randomized clinical trials

Clinical features and refractive profile of Brown syndrome

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Understanding the refractive profile, amblyopia prevalence, binocular status, and head position in patients with Brown syndrome help clinicians become more familiar with this syndrome.

BACKGROUND

Brown syndrome is identified as an active and passive restricted elevation of the eye in adduction. There is little information on clinical features, including refractive status, amblyopia, abnormal head posture (AHP), and types of deviation in these patients.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated records of 100 Brown syndrome patients from 2015 to 2022 at Farabi Eye Hospital, Iran.

RESULTS

The mean age was 6.99 ± 6.33 years, including 48 (48%) males. A congenital source was found in 74 (74%) and 96 (96%) patients had unilateral involvement. The mean CDVA for the affected and non-affected eyes were 0.05 ± 0.11 and 0.03 ± 0.06 logMAR, respectively (P = 0.31). In unilateral cases, hyperopia, myopia, and emmetropia were observed in 55 (57.29%), 2 (2.08%), and 39 (40.63%) affected eyes, respectively. The most common type of deviation was pure hypotropia, which was found in 53 (53%) cases, followed by 'combined exotropia and hypotropia' observed in 26 (26%) patients. The mean angle of hypotropia and horizontal deviation in the primary position at distance was 12.10 ± 8.50 and 8 ± 13.20 prism dioptre, respectively. A V-pattern was found in 76 (76%) patients. Amblyopia was observed in 13 (21.67%) of 60 cooperative patients, and AHP was noticed in 66 (66%) patients, in which "combined chin up and contralateral face turn" was the most common type.

CONCLUSION

About 75% of cases were congenital, 50% had pure hypotropia, 75% showed V-pattern, 20% had amblyopia, and AHP was observed in 67% of patients. The remarkable prevalence of amblyopia alongside the high occurrence of AHP should alert clinicians to carefully assess patients with Brown syndrome for sensory fusion and amblyopia.

Childhood amblyopia: A systematic review of recent management options

This study reviews the current information on treatment of childhood amblyopia, with the goal of improving visual functions. The authors searched various online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus, Google Scholar, Ebsco, and Medline. The articles, published between 2002 and 2023, included in this study were used to assess the different modalities for the management of different types of childhood amblyopia. The final systematic review included 41 studies from different countries, covering 4060 children with a mean age 6.8 ± 124 years. The findings showed that childhood amblyopia commonly treated through a systemic approach, i.e., starting with treatment of refractive errors with given optical adaptation time, followed by visually stimulating amblyopic eye by covering the dominant eye with patching, Atropine or Bangerter filters. Refractive adaptation period of 18-22 weeks has proven to show a significant improvement in visual acuity. It has been confirmed that 2 h patching is effective for the first time treated amblyopes, and if there is no improvement, increase the period to 6 h daily. Novel methods that improve binocular function such as dichoptic, perceptual training, video gaming, and drugs that facilitate visual neuroplasticity, are useful in the treatment of amblyopia that is not responsive to conventional therapy. The study concludes that significant evidence show that childhood amblyopia is treated through a systemic approach. Starting from correcting refractive errors with a period of optical adaptation, followed by patching therapy and atropine penalization. New methods that improve the binocular functions and medications that facilitate visual neuroplasticity have found to be useful in the treatment of amblyopia that is not responsive to conventional treatment.

Myopia control: Seeing beyond efficacy

SIGNIFICANCE

The availability of a range of effective myopia control modalities enables the clinician to exercise judgment when discussing the treatment plan with the patient and their parents. This article outlines important considerations beyond efficacy.Clinically meaningful myopia control may be attained with some spectacle lenses, select soft contact lenses, some concentrations of atropine, and overnight orthokeratology. Given that satisfactory efficacy can be achieved with a range of modalities, other factors should be considered when deciding upon the best intervention for a given child. Four key factors-compliance, quality of vision, quality of life, and safety-are discussed in this review. Compliance directly impacts efficacy regardless of the modality and is the most important consideration, as it is influenced by quality of vision and comfort. Daily disposal myopia control contact lenses and overnight orthokeratology are generally associated with high compliance, provide better vision-related quality of life than spectacles, and carry a very low risk when used appropriately. A further benefit of overnight orthokeratology is the elimination of a need for optical correction during the day.

Basic acquired nonaccommodative esotropia patients managed with surgery; a study of 2102 patients

INTRODUCTION

Several studies investigated preoperative clinical features of patients with basic-acquired nonaccommodative esotropia (BANAET); however, their sample sizes were small, and they did not compare the clinical features among cases that needed different surgery times. The main purpose of this study is to compare the preoperative clinical features of patients with BANAET managed with one surgery with patients who underwent two or more strabismus surgery over 10 years.

METHODS

This historical cohort study was performed on the hospital records of 13,252 Iranian strabismic patients who underwent surgery at Farabi eye hospital, Tehran, Iran, from 2012 to September 2022. Of those, 2102 cases with BANAET were selected as the sample size. Data collected included sex, age at the time of first surgery, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refractive error, presence of amblyopia, angle of deviation, and times of surgery.

RESULTS

The mean age was 18.9 ± 15.6 [1200 (57.1%) males and 902 (42.9%) females] and the median age was 14 years. In 1599 (76.1%) patients, esotropia was managed with one surgery; however, 342 (16.3%) cases were managed with two surgeries and 161 (7.6%) patients underwent three or more surgeries. The mean angle of horizontal deviation at distance and near in patients managed with two and ≥3 surgeries was significantly higher than in cases managed with one surgery (P < .001). Amblyopia was observed in 289 (18.1%) patients who were managed with one surgery, 69 (20.2%) patients with two surgeries and 43 (26.7%) patients with three or more surgeries (P < .001). Patients with BANAET managed successfully with only one surgery were younger, had better CDVA, lower astigmatism and less horizontal angle of deviation at distance and near than those who underwent two or more surgeries (all P < .001).

DISCUSSION

The higher astigmatism, lower CDVA, greater angle of horizontal deviation, and higher frequency of amblyopia were found in the preoperative examinations of BANAET patients managed with two or more surgeries compared with cases managed with only one surgery.

Amblyopia: A review of unmet needs, current treatment options, and emerging therapies

Amblyopia is a global public health issue with extensive, multifaceted impacts on vision and quality of life (QoL) for both patients and families. Geographical variation exists in the management of amblyopia, with traditional mainstay treatments, optical correction, and fellow eye occlusion most successful when implemented at an early age. In recent years, however, studies demonstrating meaningful improvements in older children and adults have challenged the concept of a complete loss of visual processing plasticity beyond the critical period of visual development, with growing evidence supporting the potential efficacy of emerging, more engaging, binocular therapies in both adults and children. Binocular approaches aim to restore deficits in amblyopia that extend beyond monocular visual acuity impairment, including binocular fusion and visuomotor skills. In view of this, incorporating outcome measures that evaluate the visual performance and functional ability of individuals with amblyopia will provide a clearer understanding of the effect of amblyopia on QoL and a more comprehensive evaluation of amblyopia therapies.

Amblyopia and fixation eye movements

Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by abnormal visual experience in early life that affects 3-5% of the population. Amblyopia results in a host of monocular and binocular visual afferent function deficits including reduced visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, depth perception, interocular suppression, and efferent function abnormalities such as unstable and inaccurate fixation. Conventional treatments such as patching therapy and newer dichoptic treatments are not always successful as 30-40% of patients experience recurrence/regression of amblyopia. There are numerous review articles focused on visual afferent function deficits and treatment modalities and outcomes in amblyopia. Recently, the advent of high spatial and temporal resolution eye trackers has spurred studies on fixation eye movements (FEMs) in healthy controls and neurologic and ophthalmic disorders. In this focused review, we will summarize studies evaluating FEM abnormalities in amblyopia. We will first describe the common devices and techniques used to quantify fixation abnormalities, and then highlight the importance of systematically evaluating the eye movements under different viewing conditions and describe the parameters crucial in assessing FEM abnormalities in amblyopia. We will summarize the evidence suggesting that FEM abnormalities are not limited to the amblyopic eye only but also affects the fellow eye and that FEM abnormalities can serve as biomarkers to predict the impact of amblyopia on visual functions. Beyond diagnosis, we will discuss the treatment and prognostic implications of the evaluation of FEM abnormalities in clinical practice.

Perceptual learning with hand - eye coordination as an effective tool for managing amblyopia: A prospective study

Purpose

Amblyopia is a serious condition resulting in monocular impairment of vision. Although traditional treatment improves vision, we attempted to explore the results of perceptual learning in this study.

Methods

This prospective cohort study included all patients with amblyopia who were subjected to perceptual learning. The presenting data on vision, stereopsis and contrast sensitivity were documented in a pretested online format, and the pre- and post-treatment information was compared using descriptive, cross-tabulation and comparative methods on SPSS 2.2. The mean values were obtained, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The cohort consisted of 47 patients (23 females and 24 males) with a mean age of 14.11 ± 7.13 years. A statistically significant improvement was detected in visual acuity after the perceptual learning session, and the median follow-up period was 17 days. Also, significant improvements were observed in stereopsis but not in the visual outcomes among the age groups.

Conclusion

Perceptual learning with hand-eye coordination is an effective method for managing amblyopia. This approach can improve vision in all age groups. However, visual improvement is significantly influenced by ocular alignment.

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.

Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years

BACKGROUND

Current treatments for amblyopia, typically patching or pharmacological blurring, have limited success. Less than two-thirds of children achieve good acuity of 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor adherence to treatment. A new approach, based on presentation of movies or computer games separately to each eye, may yield better results and improve adherence. These treatments aim to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain.  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether binocular treatments in children, aged three to eight years, with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional patching or pharmacological blurring treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to 19 November 2020, with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search for relevant studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia. Amblyopia was classed as present when the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor, such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. To be eligible, children needed to have undergone cycloplegic refraction and  ophthalmic examination, including fundal examination and optical treatment, if indicated, with stable BCVA in the amblyopic eye despite good adherence with wearing glasses. We included any type of binocular viewing intervention, on any device (e.g. computer monitors viewed with liquid-crystal display shutter glasses; hand-held screens, including mobile phones with lenticular prism overlay; or virtual reality displays). Control groups received standard amblyopia treatment, which could include patching or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We included full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) patching regimens. We excluded children who had received any treatment other than optical treatment; and studies with less than 8-week follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome of the review was the change from baseline of distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye after 16 (± 2) weeks of treatment, measured in logMAR units on an age-appropriate acuity test.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one eligible RCT of conventional patching treatment versus novel binocular treatment, and analysed a subset of 68 children who fulfilled the age criterion of this review. We obtained data for the mean change in amblyopic eye visual acuity, adverse events (diplopia), and adherence to prescribed treatment at 8- and 16-week follow-up intervals, though no data were available for change in BCVA after 52 weeks. Risk of bias for the included study was considered to be low. The certainty of evidence for the visual acuity outcomes at 8 and 16 weeks of treatment and adherence to the study intervention was rated moderate using the GRADE criteria, downgrading by one level due to imprecision. The certainty of evidence was downgraded by two levels and rated low for the proportion of participants reporting adverse events due to the sample size.  Acuity improved in the amblyopic eye in both the binocular and patching groups following 16 weeks of treatment (improvement of -0.21 logMAR in the binocular group and -0.24 logMAR in the patching group, mean difference (MD) 0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.04; 63 children). This difference was non-significant and the improvements in both the binocular and patching groups are also considered clinically similar. Following 8 weeks of treatment, acuity improved in both the binocular and patching groups (improvement of -0.18 logMAR in the patching group compared to -0.16 logMAR improvement in the binocular-treatment group) (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08). Again this difference was statistically non-significant, and the differences observed between the patching and binocular groups are also clinically non-significant. No adverse event of permanent diplopia was reported. Adherence was higher in the patching group (47% of participants in the iPad group achieved over 75% compliance compared with 90% of the patching group).  Data were not available for changes in stereopsis nor for contrast sensitivity following treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is only one RCT that offers evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatment. The authors are moderately confident that after 16 weeks of treatment, the gain in amblyopic eye acuity with binocular treatment is likely comparable to that of conventional patching treatment. However, due to the limited sample size and lack of long term (52 week) follow-up data, it is not yet possible to draw robust conclusions regarding the overall safety and sustained effectiveness of binocular treatment. Further research, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility, is required to inform decisions about the implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice, and should incorporate longer term follow-up to establish the effectiveness of binocular treatment. Randomised controlled trials should also include outcomes reported by users, adherence to prescribed treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.

Management of amblyopia in pediatric patients: Current insights

Amblyopia is a cause of significant ocular morbidity in pediatric population and may lead to visual impairment in future life. It is caused due to formed visual deprivation or abnormal binocular interactions. Several risk factors in pediatric age group may lead to this disease. Author groups have tried managing different types of amblyopia, like anisometropic amblyopia, strabismic amblyopia and combined mechanism amblyopia, with optical correction, occlusion therapy, penalization, binocular therapy and surgery. We review historical and current management strategies of different types of amblyopia affecting children and outcomes in terms of visual acuity, binocularity and ocular deviation, highlighting evidence from recent studies. Literature searches were performed through Pubmed. Risk factors for amblyopia need to be identified in pediatric population as early in life as possible and managed accordingly, as visual outcomes in amblyopia are best if treated at the earliest. Although, monocular therapies like occlusion or penalization have been shown to be quite beneficial over the years, newer concepts related to binocular vision therapy are still evolving.

Recent Advances in Screening and Treatment for Amblyopia

Amblyopia is the most common cause of monocular visual impairment in children, with a prevalence of 2-3%. Not only is visual acuity reduced in one eye but binocular vision is affected, fellow eye deficits may be present, eye-hand coordination and reading can be affected, and self-perception may be diminished. New technologies for preschool vision screening hold promise for accessible, early, and accurate detection of amblyopia. Together with recent advances in our theoretical understanding of amblyopia and technological advances in amblyopia treatment, we anticipate improved visual outcomes for children affected by this very common eye condition. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Prediction of cycloplegic refraction for noninvasive screening of children for refractive error

Detection of refractive error in children is crucial to avoid amblyopia and its impact on quality of life. We here performed a retrospective study in order to develop prediction models for spherical and cylinder refraction in children. The enrolled 1221 eyes of 617 children were divided into three groups: the development group (710 eyes of 359 children), the validation group (385 eyes of 194 children), and the comparison group (126 eyes of 64 children). We determined noncycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction values by autorefractometry. In addition, several noncycloplegic parameters were assessed with the use of ocular biometry. On the basis of the information obtained from the development group, we developed prediction models for cycloplegic spherical and cylinder refraction in children with the use of stepwise multiple regression analysis. The prediction formulas were validated by their application to the validation group. The similarity of noncycloplegic and predicted refraction to cycloplegic refraction in individual eyes was evaluated in the comparison group. Application of the developed prediction models for spherical and cylinder refraction to the validation group revealed that predicted refraction was significantly correlated with measured values for cycloplegic spherical refraction (R = 0.961, P < 0.001) or cylinder refraction (R = 0.894, P < 0.001). Comparison of noncycloplegic, cycloplegic, and predicted refraction in the comparison group revealed that cycloplegic spherical refraction did not differ significantly from predicted refraction but was significantly different from noncycloplegic refraction, whereas cycloplegic cylinder refraction did not differ significantly from predicted or noncycloplegic values. Our prediction models based on ocular biometry provide estimates of refraction in children similar to measured cycloplegic spherical and cylinder refraction values without the application of cycloplegic eyedrops.

Practical use and prescription of ocular medications in children and infants

Optometrists in Australia employ ophthalmic medicines in their paediatric practice to assist clinical diagnosis and to treat ocular conditions. Prior to employing ocular medicines or initiating treatment, it is important to consider the risks versus benefits of ophthalmic medicines and determine the minimum dose required to safely achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic benefit. Instilling drops in infants and young children may require techniques that do not depend on full cooperation, particularly to maintain appropriate dosing and limit the rate of elimination from the eye. Diagnostic cycloplegic agents are highly recommended for the accurate determination of refractive error in infants and young children. Topical atropine is commonly prescribed in paediatric optometry practice in highly variable concentrations. 1% atropine eye drops are used for pharmacological penalisation in management of amblyopia, and, increasingly, low concentration (< 0.1%) atropine is used to manage the progression of childhood myopia. Doses of topical ocular medicines to treat inflammation, infection or glaucoma are generally identical to those use in adults; however, there is potential for increased ocular and systemic side effects with certain medications. It is, therefore, timely to present, summarise and comment on the use of ophthalmic diagnostic and therapeutic agents in children and reference where practitioners can look for more detailed information. The perspective is set in the Australian context of a collaborative approach between paediatric optometry and ophthalmology eye care practitioners for delivery of best practice care in infants and young children. Inclusion of the more complex spectrum of paediatric eye disease in a tertiary ophthalmological setting is provided to build practitioner knowledge of treatment regimens their patients may be using, even though management of these conditions lies outside their scope of practice.

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

PURPOSE

To describe amblyopia prevalence and outcomes using results from randomized studies and a clinical registry.

DESIGN

Review of published studies, analysis of data in Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry from 2013 to 2019, personal perspective.

METHODS

Literature review, analysis of IRIS Registry data and IRIS-50, a visual acuity quality measure.

RESULTS

Clinical trials have reduced the treatment burden of amblyopia by reducing hours of patching and frequency of atropine eye drops with clinical success of about 83%. There is no appreciable age effect if treatment is started before 5 years of age, outcomes are stable to at least 15 years of age, and treatment can be somewhat effective until 12 years of age. The IRIS Registry identified 1,760,066 individuals with amblyopia for a prevalence of 2.47%. Refractive error alone accounted for 68.9% of childhood cases. Mean amblyopic eye visual acuity improved 1.8 lines for children 3-6 years of age and 0.8 lines for 7-12 years, but mean residual amblyopia was more than 2 lines. Among 18,841 children aged 3-7 years eligible for IRIS-50, 77.3% were successful. The odds ratios for success were significantly lower for African-American (0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58 to 0.78) and Hispanic or Latino (0.84; 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.94) children compared with white children.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials provided evidence of a beneficial effect from several treatments, with substantially reduced doses than previously recommended. Registry data from clinical practice found residual visual acuity impairment among all ages and races, especially among minorities.

Part time patching treatment outcomes in children with amblyopia with and without fusion maldevelopment nystagmus: An eye movement study

PURPOSE

We investigated how the abnormalities of fixation eye movements (FEMs) of the amblyopic eye were linked with treatment outcomes following part-time patching therapy in children with amblyopia.

METHODS

We recruited 53 patients, with at least 12 months of patching, and measured FEMs at the end of treatment. Subjects were classified based on FEM waveforms (those without nystagmus = 21, those with nystagmus without fusion maldevelopment nystagmus (FMN) = 21, and those with FMN = 11) and based on clinical type of amblyopia (anisometropic = 18, strabismic = 6, and mixed = 29). The treatment outcomes such as duration of treatment of receiving part-time patching therapy, visual acuity and stereo-acuity deficits at the end of treatment were determined. Bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA), fast (fixational saccade/quick phases), and slow (inter-saccadic drifts/slow phases) FEMs of the fellow and amblyopic eye were analyzed.

RESULTS

Anisometropic group had less residual amblyopia (0.23±0.19logMAR acuity) compared to strabismic/mixed (0.36±0.26) groups (p = 0.007). Treatment duration in patients without nystagmus was lower (12.6±9.5months) compared to nystagmus without FMN (25.6±23.2) and FMN (29.5±20.4) groups (p = 0.006). Patients without nystagmus had better stereopsis at the end of treatment (2.3±0.84logarcsecs) compared to nystagmus without FMN (2.6±0.84) group (p = 0.003). The majority of patients with FMN (8/11) had absent stereopsis. BCEA of the amblyopic eye was higher in patients with greater residual visual acuity deficits in patients without nystagmus. No such association was seen in Nystagmus no FMN and FMN groups. Increased amplitude of fast FEMs, increased eye position variance and eye velocity of slow FEMs were seen in patients who had received longer duration of part time patching therapy and in those with greater residual amblyopia, and poor stereopsis at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of FEM waveforms and fast and slow FEM characteristics are important measures while describing fixation instability in amblyopia. Several FEM abnormalities were associated with stereo-acuity and visual acuity deficits and treatment duration in patients with amblyopia treated with part time patching therapy.

Characterization, passive and active treatment in strabismic amblyopia: a narrative review

Strabismic amblyopia is characterized by a distorted spatial perception. In this condition, the neurofunctional disorder occurring during first years of life provoke several monocular and binocular anomalies such as crowding, deficits in the accommodative response, contrast sensitivity, and ocular motility abilities. The inhibition of the binocular function of the brain by the misaligned amblyopic eye induces a binocular imbalance leading to interocular suppression and the reduction or lack of stereoacuity. Passive treatments such as occlusion, optical and/or pharmacological penalization, and Bangerter foils has been demonstrated to be potentially useful treatments for strabismic amblyopia. Recent researches have proved new pharmacological options to improve and maintain visual acuity after occlusion treatment in strabismic amblyopia. Likewise, the active vision therapy, in the last years, is becoming a very relevant therapeutic option in combination with passive treatments, especially during and after monocular therapy, in the attempt of recovering the imbalanced binocular vision.

Current Management of Childhood Amblyopia

Amblyopia is defined as the reduction of best-corrected visual acuity of one or both eyes caused by conditions that affect normal visual development. The basic strategy to treat amblyopia is to obtain a clear retinal image in each eye and correct ocular dominance through forced use of the amblyopic eye. Treatment modalities include correcting any underlying organic disease, prescribing appropriate optical correction, and providing occlusion/penalization therapy for the non-amblyopic eye. Given the success of amblyopia treatment declines with increasing age, the detection and management of amblyopia should begin as early as possible during the sensitive period for visual development. Proper management of amblyopia during childhood can reduce the overall prevalence and severity of visual loss. This study aims to provide an update for the management of childhood amblyopia to provide better visual outcomes.

Efficacy of interventions for amblyopia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the relative efficacy of these treatments for amblyopia.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched from inception to Sep. 2019. Only Randomized clinical trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments were included: refractive correction (spectacles alone), patching of 2 h per day (patch 2H), patch 6H, patch 12H, patch 2H + near activities (N), patch 2H + distant activities (D), atropine (Atr) daily, Atr weekly, Atr weekly + plano lens over the sound eye (Plano), optical penalization and binocular therapy. The reviewers independently extracted the data according to the PRISMA guidelines; assessed study quality by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) expressed as log MAR lines. Direct comparisons and a Bayesian meta-analysis were performed to synthesize data.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 3279 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, optical penalization was the least effective of all the treatments for the change of visual acuity, spectacles (mean difference [MD], 2.9 Log MAR lines; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.8-4.0), patch 2H (MD, 3.3; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.3), patch 6H (MD, 3.6; 95% CrI, 2.6-4.6), patch 12H (MD, 3.4; 95% CrI, 2.3-4.5), patch 2H + N (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.5-5.0), patch 2H + D (MD, 3.5; 95% CrI, 2.1-5.0), Atr daily (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly (MD, 3.2; 95% CrI, 2.2-4.3), Atr weekly + Plano (MD, 3.7; 95% CrI, 2.7-4.7), binocular therapy (MD, 3.1; 95% CrI, 2.0-4.2). The patch 6H and patch 2H + N were better than spectacles ([MD, 0.73; 95% Crl, 0.10-1.40]; [MD, 0.84; 95% CrI, 0.19-1.50]).

CONCLUSIONS

The NMA indicated that the efficacy of the most of the examined treatment modalities for amblyopia were comparable, with no significant difference. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine their efficacy and acceptability.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42019119843.

Baseline and Clinical Factors Associated with Response to Amblyopia Treatment in a Randomized Clinical Trial

SIGNIFICANCE

We sought to identify baseline and clinical factors that were predictive of the response to amblyopia treatment. We report that binocular amblyopia treatment may be especially effective for moderate amblyopia in orthotropic children.

PURPOSE

We previously reported results from the primary cohort (n = 28) enrolled in a randomized clinical trial (NCT02365090), which found that binocular amblyopia treatment was more effective than patching. Enrollment of an additional 20 children was pre-planned to provide the opportunity to examine factors that may be predictive of response to amblyopia treatment.

METHODS

Forty-eight children (4 to 10 years old) were enrolled, with 24 randomized to contrast-rebalanced binocular game treatment (1 hour a day, 5 days a week) and 24 to patching treatment (2 hours a day, 7 days a week). The primary outcome was change in amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity at the 2-week visit. Baseline factors examined were age at enrollment, visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression. Clinical factors were etiology, age at diagnosis, prior treatment, and ocular alignment.

RESULTS

At 2 weeks, visual acuity improvement was significantly greater with the binocular game than patching. Children with moderate amblyopia and orthotropia had more visual acuity improvement with binocular game play than did those with severe amblyopia. In addition, children who spent more time playing the binocular game had more improvement. We were not able to confidently identify any baseline or clinical factors that were associated with response to patching treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Binocular amblyopia treatment was more effective among orthotropic children with moderate amblyopia than among children with microtropia or severe amblyopia.

Intense versus standard regimens of intermittent occlusion therapy for unilateral moderate amblyopia in children: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

We reported that in our previous study that wearing intermittent occlusion therapy glasses (IO-therapy) for 4 hours (h) was non-inferior to patching for 2 h in 3 to 8-year-old children with amblyopia. We hypothesize that an intense regimen of 12-h IO-therapy per day for 4 weeks could be as effective as the standard regimen of 4-h IO-therapy per day for 12 weeks in treating moderate amblyopia in 3 to 8-year-old children.

Methods/Design

A total of 56 children between 3 and 8 years of age with amblyopia in association with anisometropia and/or strabismus will be enrolled. All participants will be prescribed IO-therapy glasses (Amblyz™), set at 30-s opaque/transparent intervals (i.e., occluded 50% of wear time). They will be randomized to receive the standard regimen for 12 weeks or the intense regimen for 4 weeks. Adherence to using the IO-therapy glasses will be objectively monitored in each participant by means of a microsensor dose monitor. The primary study objective is to compare the effectiveness of an intense regimen to a standard regimen of IO-therapy in 3 to 8-year-old children with moderate amblyopia. The secondary study objectives are to determine whether adherence differs between an intense regimen and a standard regimen of IO-therapy, and to determine the dose-response relationship of IO-therapy.

Discussion

In addition to testing the effectiveness, this study will test for the first time the association between treatment adherence and the visual outcome of IO-therapy, which will enhance our understanding of the dose-response relationship of IO-therapy. If an intense regimen is shown to be effective, it would alter amblyopia treatment strategies and improve visual outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02767856. Registered on 10 May 2016.

Simplified updates on the pathophysiology and recent developments in the treatment of amblyopia: A review

Amblyopia is the most common cause of monocular visual impairment affecting 2-5% of the general population. Amblyopia is a developmental cortical disorder of the visual pathway essentially due to abnormal visual stimulus, reaching the binocular cortical cells, which may be multivariate. Ganglion cells are of two types: parvocellular (P cells) and magnocellular (M cells); they are the first step where the light energy is converted in to neural impulse. P cells are involved in fine visual acuity, fine stereopsis, and color vision and M cells are involved in gross stereopsis and movement recognition. Strabismus, refractive error, cataract, and ptosis, occurring during critical period are highly amblyogenic. The critical period extends from birth to 7--8 years. The earlier the clinically significant refractive error and strabismus are detected and treated, the greater the likelihood of preventing amblyopia. Treatment for amblyopia in children includes: optical correction of significant refractive errors, patching, pharmacological treatment, and alternative therapies which include: vision therapy, binocular therapy, and liquid crystal display eyeglasses are newer treatment modalities for amblyopia. Age of starting the treatment is not predictive of outcome, instituting treatment on detection and early detection plays a role in achieving better outcomes. This review aims to give a simplified update on amblyopia, which will be of use to a clinician, in understanding the pathophysiology of the complex condition. We also share the cortical aspects of amblyopia and give recent developments in the treatment of amblyopia.

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia

BACKGROUND

Amblyopia is defined as impaired visual acuity in one or both eyes without demonstrable abnormality of the visual pathway, and is not immediately resolved by wearing glasses.

OBJECTIVES

In performing this systematic review, we aimed to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion therapy compared to atropine penalization in treating amblyopia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS BIREME; ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN; and the WHO ICTRP on 7 September 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized/quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing conventional occlusion to atropine penalization for amblyopia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (five randomized controlled trials and two quasi-randomized controlled trials) conducted in six countries (China, India, Iran, Ireland, Spain, and the United States) with a total of 1177 amblyopic eyes. Three of these seven trials were from the original 2009 version of the review. We assessed two trials as having a low risk of bias across all domains, and the remaining five trials as having unclear or high risk of bias for some domains.As different occlusion modalities, atropine penalization regimens, and populations were used across the included trials, we did not conduct any meta-analysis due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Evidence from six trials (two at low risk of bias) suggests that atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion in improving visual acuity. Similar improvement in visual acuity was reported at all time points at which it was assessed, ranging from five weeks (improvement of 1 line) to 10 years (improvement of greater than 3 lines). At six months, although most participants (363/522) come from a trial rated as at low risk of bias with a precise estimate (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.06), two other trials rated as at high risk of bias produced inconsistent estimates and wide confidence intervals (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07 and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 months, additional improvement was found in both groups, but there continued to be no meaningful difference between those receiving occlusion and those receiving atropine therapies (moderate-certainty evidence).We did not find any difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity, or sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization groups (moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments were well tolerated. Atropine was associated with better adherence (moderate-certainty evidence) and quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), but also a higher reported risk of adverse events in terms of mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment and light sensitivity (high-certainty evidence). Skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation were more common among participants receiving patching than those receiving atropine (high-certainty evidence). Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the trials we analyzed.

Amblyopia treatment and quality of life: the child's perspective on atropine versus patching

Background: The impact on children of patching versus atropine treatment for amblyopia was assessed using children's perspective Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) scores in 5 to 7-year olds. Methods: Forty-six children on the threshold of commencing either patching or atropine treatment for amblyopia were recruited. Treatment was prescribed for uniocular amblyopia of visual acuity (VA) 0.2 logMAR or worse. After four weeks of their chosen treatment, each child completed the Child Amblyopia Treatment Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CAT-QoL). The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™), Young Child (5-7) Self-Report version, was completed before and after four weeks of treatment. Quality of life scores were compared between the two treatment groups. Results: Sixty-one percent (n = 28) of participants were male and 56.5% (n = 26) were white British. The CAT-QoL has a range of 0-16, with 16 being the worst quality of life. No significant difference was found between the patching group (n = 30, mean age 69.7 months) and the atropine group (n = 16, mean age 69.3 months) for CAT-QoL quality of life scores (Patch median = 6.3, Atropine median = 5.6, U = 199, p = .341, 95% CI of the median difference of -2.3 to 0.9). The Young Child (5-7) Self-Report version of the PedsQL™ has a 'total score' range of 0-100, with 0 being the worst quality of life. There was also no significant difference in PedsQL™ quality of life total scores (Patch median = 80, Atropine median = 83.33, U = 239.5, p = .991, 95% CI of the median difference -13.33 to 10) after four weeks of treatment. Conclusion: Amblyopic children reported that patching and atropine treatments did not have a significant impact on their quality of life. Patching and atropine should continue to be offered as first-line treatments for amblyopia, as children appear to tolerate both well and do not favor one over the other.

Atropine Penalization Versus Occlusion Therapies for Unilateral Amblyopia after the Critical Period of Visual Development: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Amblyopia therapy appears to be most effective in children under the age of 7 years, but results from randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown that occlusion therapy and/or atropine penalization therapy may improve visual acuity in an older age group. Which of these two therapies is the most effective with fewer adverse effects in an older age group has not yet been agreed upon.

Methods

We systematically searched the literature for RCTs that compared atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy in terms of their visual acuity outcomes and adverse events and performed a meta-analysis on the visual acuity data obtained. The adverse effects reported and their implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Results

Two RCTs were identified, with the authors of both concluding that there was no detectable difference between the two therapies for the age groups they studied. The mean difference between atropine penalization and occlusion therapies was calculated to be − 0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval − 0.07 to 0.03 logMAR) in favor of occlusion therapy, and no statistical difference between the two groups was detected (P = 0.45). Neither study detected a marked difference in terms of reported adverse effects from the two interventions.

Conclusion

Based on the results of our meta-analysis we conclude that there is no difference in visual acuity outcomes between atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy after 17 to 24 weeks of treatment in children aged 7–12 years. Further evidence to determine the efficacy of amblyopia therapy for an older patient population is required before studies comparing atropine penalization and occlusion therapy in patients older than 12 years can be performed. Atropine penalization therapy may cause more frequent minor adverse effects, such as light sensitivity, but in the clinical setting this needs to be balanced with the potential practical benefits of twice-weekly eye drops versus daily occlusion.

Funding

The funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Health Education England (HEE).

Plain Language Summary

A plain language summary is available for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40123-018-0151-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison between over-glasses patching and adhesive patching for children with moderate amblyopia: a prospective randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To investigate efficacy of over-glasses patching treatment for amblyopic children using visual function improvement and Amblyopia Treatment Index (ATI) changes.

METHODS

In a randomized multi-center controlled clinical trial, 107 children aged 3-7 years with moderate amblyopia (visual acuity in the range of 20/40 to 20/100) were included to receive treatment with either an adhesive skin patch or a fabric over-glasses patch. The patients were prescribed 2 h of patching per day for the sound eye. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was investigated and ATI questionnaires were collected from parents at 5 weeks and 17 weeks after the initiation of treatment. ATI identifies barriers and problems associated with amblyopia treatment. We compared the changes of visual acuity of amblyopic eyes and ATI scores in two groups.

RESULTS

At 17 weeks, the mean visual acuity of the amblyopic eye using Snellen chart improved 3.2 lines in the adhesive patching group and 2.7 lines for an over-glasses patching method that fit over eyeglasses (p = 0.345). A similar proportion of subjects in each group had improvement of ≥ 2 lines (adhesive patching group 67% vs over-glasses patching group 67%, p = 0.372). There was also no difference in treatment burden in each group as measured with the Amblyopia Treatment Index. The only item to demonstrate a significant difference between groups was that related to "Treatment makes the eye or eyelids red" (mean 4.0 ± 1.1 vs 3.0 ± 1.0 at 17 weeks, p = 0.001, for adhesive vs over-glasses patch).

CONCLUSIONS

Over-glasses patching treatment is a useful option for amblyopia treatment when the patients suffer from adverse effects of using adhesive skin patching.

Treatment of Amblyopia Using Personalized Dosing Strategies: Statistical Modelling and Clinical Implementation

PURPOSE

To generate a statistical model for personalizing a patient's occlusion therapy regimen.

METHODS

Statistical modelling was undertaken on a combined data set of the Monitored Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Study (MOTAS) and the Randomized Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Study (ROTAS). This exercise permits the calculation of future patients' total effective dose (TED)-that predicted to achieve their best attainable visual acuity. Daily patching regimens (hours/day) can be calculated from the TED.

RESULTS

Occlusion data for 149 study participants with amblyopia (anisometropic in 50, strabismic in 43, and mixed in 56) were analyzed. Median time to best observed visual acuity was 63 days (25% and 75% quartiles; 28 and 91 days). Median visual acuity in the amblyopic eye at start of occlusion was 0.40 logMAR (quartiles 0.22 and 0.68 logMAR) and at end of occlusion was 0.12 (quartiles 0.025 and 0.32 logMAR). Median lower and upper estimates of TED were 120 hours (quartiles 34 and 242 hours), and 176 hours (quartiles 84 and 316 hours). The data suggest a piecewise linear relationship (P = 0.008) between patching dose-rate (hours/day) and TED with a single breakpoint estimated at 2.16 (standard error 0.51) hours/day, suggesting doses below 2.16 hours/day are less effective.

CONCLUSION

We introduce the concept of TED of occlusion. Predictors for TED are visual acuity deficit, amblyopia type, and age at start of occlusion therapy. Dose-rates prescribed within the model range from 2.5 to 12 hours/day and can be revised dynamically throughout treatment in response to recorded patient compliance: a personalized dosing strategy.

Treatment of Amblyopia and Amblyopia Risk Factors Based on Current Evidence

PURPOSE

Amblyopia is a leading cause of low vision and warrants timely management during childhood. We performed a literature review of the management of amblyopia and potential risk factors for amblyopia.

METHODS

Literature review of the management of amblyopia and risk factors for amblyopia.

RESULTS

Common amblyopia risk factors include anisometropic or high refractive error, strabismus, cataract, and ptosis. Often a conservative approach with spectacles is enough to prevent amblyopia. However, surgery may be necessary to clear the visual axis or align the eyes.

CONCLUSION

Amblyopia risk factors should be managed early. Though amblyopia treatment is more likely to be successful at a younger age, those who are older but treatment-naïve may still respond to treatment. Promoting binocular or dichoptic experiences may be the future direction of amblyopia management.

The Initiation of Smooth Pursuit is Delayed in Anisometropic Amblyopia

Purpose

Several behavioral studies have shown that the reaction times of visually guided movements are slower in people with amblyopia, particularly during amblyopic eye viewing. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the initiation of smooth pursuit eye movements, which are responsible for accurately keeping moving objects on the fovea, is delayed in people with anisometropic amblyopia.

Methods

Eleven participants with anisometropic amblyopia and 14 visually normal observers were asked to track a step-ramp target moving at ±15°/s horizontally as quickly and as accurately as possible. The experiment was conducted under three viewing conditions: amblyopic/nondominant eye, binocular, and fellow/dominant eye viewing. Outcome measures were smooth pursuit latency, open-loop gain, steady state gain, and catch-up saccade frequency.

Results

Participants with anisometropic amblyopia initiated smooth pursuit significantly slower during amblyopic eye viewing (206 ± 20 ms) than visually normal observers viewing with their nondominant eye (183 ± 17 ms, P = 0.002). However, mean pursuit latency in the anisometropic amblyopia group during binocular and monocular fellow eye viewing was comparable to the visually normal group. Mean open-loop gain, steady state gain, and catch-up saccade frequency were similar between the two groups, but participants with anisometropic amblyopia exhibited more variable steady state gain (P = 0.045).

Conclusions

This study provides evidence of temporally delayed smooth pursuit initiation in anisometropic amblyopia. After initiation, the smooth pursuit velocity profile in anisometropic amblyopia participants is similar to visually normal controls. This finding differs from what has been observed previously in participants with strabismic amblyopia who exhibit reduced smooth pursuit velocity gains with more catch-up saccades.

Paediatric Eye Services: How Much of the Workload Is Amblyopia-Related?

AIMS

The proportion of patients seen by the paediatric eye service that attend for reasons related to amblyopia has not been quantified. The purpose of this study was to quantify the proportion of patients seen in the paediatric eye service attending for reasons related to amblyopia.

METHODS

Records of all eye appointments of children attending the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and St Mary's Hospital Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust over one month in 2009 were examined to determine the diagnosis and reason for attendance.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and four patients had appointments booked at St Mary's and Hillingdon in March 2009. The fail-to-attend rates were not significantly different at the 2 sites (19% at St Mary's and 9% at Hillingdon; P=0.75). Of the 704 patients, 533 (St Mary's, 252 [75%]; Hillingdon, 281 [76%]) were attending for amblyopia-related reasons. Of the overall 982 booked appointments, 770 (79%) were amblyopia-related.

CONCLUSIONS

Amblyopia diagnosis and management is clearly the most common cause of attendance to the paediatric eye service, accounting for over three-quarters of outpatient visits.

The challenges of amblyopia treatment

The treatment of amblyopia, particularly anisometropic (difference in refractive correction) and/or strabismic (turn of one eye) amblyopia has long been a challenge for many clinicians. Achieving optimum outcomes, where the amblyopic eye reaches a visual acuity similar to the fellow eye, is often impossible in many patients. Part of this challenge has resulted from a previous lack of scientific evidence for amblyopia treatment that was highlight by a systematic review by Snowdon et al. in 1998. Since this review, a number of publications have revealed new findings in the treatment of amblyopia. This includes the finding that less intensive occlusion treatments can be successful in treating amblyopia. A relationship between adherence to treatment and visual acuity has also been established and has been shown to be influenced by the use of intervention material. In addition, there is growing evidence of that a period of glasses wearing only can significantly improve visual acuity alone without any other modes of treatment. This review article reports findings since the Snowdon's report.

Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years

BACKGROUND

Current treatments for amblyopia in children, occlusion and pharmacological blurring, have had limited success, with less than two-thirds of children achieving good visual acuity of at least 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor compliance. A new treatment approach, based on the dichoptic presentation of movies or computer games (images presented separately to each eye), may yield better results, as it aims to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain. Compliance may also improve with these more child-friendly treatment procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether binocular treatments in children aged three to eight years with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional occlusion or pharmacological blurring treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (last date of searches: 14 April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened the results of the search in order to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled participants between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia, defined as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, and BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. Prior to enrolment, participants were to have undergone a cycloplegic refraction and comprehensive ophthalmic examination including fundal examination. In addition, participants had to have completed a period of optical treatment, if indicated, and BCVA in the amblyopic eye had to remain unchanged on two consecutive assessments despite reportedly good compliance with glasses wearing. Participants were not to have received any treatment other than optical treatment prior to enrolment. We planned to include any type of binocular viewing intervention; these could be delivered on different devices including computer monitors viewed with LCD shutter glasses or hand-held screens including mobile phone screens with lenticular prism overlay. Control groups were to have received standard amblyopia treatment; this could include occlusion or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We planned to include full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) occlusion regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We had planned to meta-analyse the primary outcome, that is mean distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye at 12 months after the cessation of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We could identify no RCTs in this subject area.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Further research is required to allow decisions about implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice. Currently there are no clinical trials offering standardised evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatments, but results from non-controlled cohort studies are encouraging. Future research should be conducted in the form of RCTs, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility. Other important outcome measures include outcomes reported by users, compliance with treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.

Whole-population vision screening in children aged 4-5 years to detect amblyopia

Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects at least 2% of most populations and can lead to permanently reduced vision if not detected and treated within a specific period in childhood. Whole-population screening of children younger than 5 years is applied in many countries. The substantial diversity in existing programmes reflects their heterogeneous implementation in the absence of the complete evidence base that is now a pre-requisite for instituting screening. The functional importance of amblyopia at an individual level is unclear as data are scarce, but in view of the high prevalence the population-level effect might be notable. Screening of all children aged 4-5 years (eg, at school entry) confers most benefit and addresses inequity in access to timely treatment. Screening at younger ages is associated with increased risk of false-positive results, and at older ages with poor outcomes for children with moderate to severe amblyopia. We suggest that the real-life adverse effects of amblyopia should be characterised and screening and diagnosis should be standardised.

Designing clinical trials for amblyopia

Randomized clinical trial (RCT) study design leads to one of the highest levels of evidence, and is a preferred study design over cohort studies, because randomization reduces bias and maximizes the chance that even unknown confounding factors will be balanced between treatment groups. Recent randomized clinical trials and observational studies in amblyopia can be taken together to formulate an evidence-based approach to amblyopia treatment, which is presented in this review. When designing future clinical studies of amblyopia treatment, issues such as regression to the mean, sample size and trial duration must be considered, since each may impact study results and conclusions.

Compliance and patching and atropine amblyopia treatments

In the past 20 years, there has been a great advancement in knowledge pertaining to compliance with amblyopia treatments. The occlusion dose monitor introduced quantitative monitoring methods in patching, which sparked our initial understanding of the dose-response relationship for patching amblyopia treatment. This review focuses on current compliance knowledge and the impact it has on patching and atropine amblyopia treatment.

Use of atropine penalization to treat amblyopia in UK orthoptic practice

PURPOSE

To compare clinical practice patterns regarding atropine penalization use by UK orthoptists to the current evidence base and identify any existing barriers against use of AP as first-line treatment.

METHODS

An online survey was designed to assess current practice patterns of UK orthoptists using atropine penalization. They were asked to identify issues limiting their use of atropine penalization and give opinions on its effectiveness compared to occlusion. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were applied to the results.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 151 orthoptists throughout the United Kingdom. The main perceived barriers to use of atropine penalization were inability to prescribe atropine and supply difficulties. However, respondents also did not consider atropine penalization as effective as occlusion in treating amblyopia, contrary to recent research findings. Patient selection criteria and treatment administration largely follow current evidence. More orthoptists use atropine penalization as first-line treatment than previously reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Practitioners tend to closely follow the current evidence base when using atropine penalization, but reluctance in offering it as first-line treatment or providing a choice for parents between occlusion and atropine still remains. This may result from concerns regarding atropine's general efficacy, side effects, and risk of reverse amblyopia. Alternatively, as demonstrated in other areas of medicine, it may reflect the inherent delay of research findings translating to clinical practice changes.

Comparison of the efficacies of patching and penalization therapies for the treatment of amblyopia patients

AIM

To compare the efficacies of patching and penalization therapies for the treatment of amblyopia patients.

METHODS

The records of 64 eyes of 50 patients 7 to 16y of age who had presented to our clinics with a diagnosis of amblyopia, were evaluated retrospectively. Forty eyes of 26 patients who had received patching therapy and 24 eyes of 24 patients who had received penalization therapy included in this study. The latencies and amplitudes of visual evoked potential (VEP) records and best corrected visual acuities (BCVA) of these two groups were compared before and six months after the treatment.

RESULTS

In both patching and the penalization groups, the visual acuities increased significantly following the treatments (P<0.05). The latency measurements of the P100 wave obtained at 1.0°, 15 arc min. Patterns of both groups significantly decreased following the 6-months-treatment. However, the amplitude measurements increased (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The patching and the penalization methods, which are the main methods used in the treatment of amblyopia, were also effective over the age of 7y, which has been accepted as the critical age for the treatment of amblyopia.

Retinal Dysfunction in Patients with Congenital Fibrosis of the Extraocular Muscles Type 2

INTRODUCTION

Congenital fibrosis of the extraocular muscles type 2 (CFEOM2) is a distinct non-syndromic form of congenital incomitant strabismus secondary to orbital dysinnervation from recessive mutations in the gene PHOX2A. The phenotype includes bilateral ptosis, very large angle exotropia, ophthalmoplegia, and poorly-reactive pupils. Other than amblyopia, afferent visual dysfunction has not been considered part of CFEOM2; however, we have repeatedly observed non-amblyopic subnormal vision in affected patients. The purpose of this study was to document this recurrent feature of the phenotype.

METHODS

A retrospective case series (2002-2012).

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (four families) were identified; all affected individuals had confirmed homozygous recessive PHOX2A mutations except one individual for whom genetic testing was not done because of multiple genetically confirmed family members. Age at assessment ranged from 5-62 years old (median 10 years old). All patients had decreased best-corrected visual acuity not completely explainable by amblyopia in both the preferred and non-preferred eye. In those patients who had further ancillary testing, visual fields (five patients) and electroretinography (10 patients) confirmed abnormalities not ascribable to amblyopia.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to a distinct form of congenital incomitant strabismus, the phenotype of CFEOM2 includes subnormal vision consistent with retinal dysfunction. This could be the direct result of PHOX2A mutations or a secondary effect of orbital dysinnervation.