The course of moderate amblyopia treated with atropine in children: experience of the amblyopia treatment study

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.

Current Management of Amblyopia with New Technologies for Binocular Treatment

Amblyopia is the most common cause of monocular poor vision affecting up to 3.7% of the global population. Classically, the first step in treatment has been optical correction, followed by patching and/or pharmacological treatment. However, this is an evolving scenario, since researchers and clinicians are interested in new binocular treatments due to the increasing development of new technologies. In this article main, current binocular treatments as Dig Rush, falling blocks, I-BiT, Occlu-tab, Vivid Vision, and movies are reviewed for binocular amblyopia management.

Amblyopia treatment: an evidence‐based approach to maximising treatment outcome

The basis of treatment for amblyopia (poor vision due to abnormal visual experience early in life) for 250 years has been patching of the unaffected eye for extended times to ensure a period of use of the affected eye. Over the last decade randomised controlled treatment trials have provided some evidence on how to tailor amblyopia therapy more precisely to achieve the best visual outcome with the least negative impact on the patient and the family. This review highlights the expansion of knowledge regarding treatment for amblyopia and aims to provide optometrists with a summary of research evidence to enable them to better treat amblyopia. Treatment for amblyopia is effective, as it reduces overall prevalence and severity of visual loss in this population. Correction of refractive error alone significantly improves visual acuity, sometimes to the point where further amblyopia treatment is not required. Atropine penalisation and patch occlusion are effective in treating amblyopia. Lesser amounts of occlusion or penalisation have been found to be just as effective as greater amounts. Recent evidence has highlighted that occlusion or penalisation in amblyopia treatment can create negative changes in behaviour in children and impact on family life. These complications should be considered when prescribing treatment because they can negatively affect compliance. Studies investigating the maximum age at which treatment of amblyopia can still be effective and the importance of near activities during occlusion are ongoing.

Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, functional effects and treatment

Amblyopia, defined as poor vision due to abnormal visual experience early in life, affects approximately three per cent of the population and carries a projected lifetime risk of visual loss of at least 1.2 per cent. The presence of amblyopia or its risk factors, mainly strabismus or refractive error, have been primary conditions targeted in childhood vision screenings. Continued support for such screenings requires evidence-based understanding of the prevalence and natural history of amblyopia and its predisposing conditions, and proof that treatment is effective in the long term with minimal negative impact on the patient and family. This review summarises recent research relevant to the clinical understanding of amblyopia, including prevalence data, risk factors, the functional impact of amblyopia and optimum treatment regimes and their justification from a vision and life skills perspective. Collectively, these studies indicate that treatment for amblyopia is effective in reducing the overall prevalence and severity of visual loss from amblyopia. Correction of refractive error alone has been shown to significantly reduce amblyopia and less frequent occlusion can be just as effective as more extensive occlusion. Occlusion or penalisation in amblyopia treatment can create negative changes in behaviour in children and impact on family life, and these factors should be considered in prescribing treatment, particularly because of their influence on compliance. Ongoing treatment trials are being undertaken to determine both the maximum age at which treatment of amblyopia can still be effective and the importance of near activities during occlusion. This review highlights the expansion of current knowledge regarding amblyopia and its treatment to help clinicians provide the best level of care for their amblyopic patients that current knowledge allows.

Efficacy of vision-based treatments for children and teens with amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective

To identify differences in efficacy between vision-based treatments for improving visual acuity (VA) of the amblyopic eye in persons aged 4-17 years old.

Data sources

Ovid Embase, PubMed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, Vision Cite and Scopus were systematically searched from 1975 to 17 June 2020.

Methods

Two independent reviewers screened search results for randomised controlled trials of vision-based amblyopia treatments that specified change in amblyopic eye VA (logMAR) as the primary outcome measure. Quality was assessed via risk of bias and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations).

Results

Of the 3346 studies identified, 36 were included in a narrative synthesis. A random effects meta-analysis (five studies) compared the efficacy of binocular treatments versus patching: mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04 (p<0.001), favouring patching. An exploratory study-level regression (18 studies) showed no statistically significant differences between vision-based treatments and a reference group of 2-5 hours of patching. Age, sample size and pre-randomisation optical treatment were not statistically significantly associated with changes in amblyopic eye acuity. A network meta-analysis (26 studies) comparing vision-based treatments to patching 2-5 hours found one statistically significant comparison, namely, the favouring of a combination of two treatment arms comparing combination and binocular treatments, against patching 2-5 hours: standard mean difference: 2.63; 95% CI 1.18 to 4.09. However, this result was an indirect comparison calculated from a single study. A linear regression analysis (17 studies) found a significant relationship between adherence and effect size, but the model did not completely fit the data: regression coefficient 0.022; 95% CI 0.004 to 0.040 (p=0.02).

Conclusion

We found no clinically relevant differences in treatment efficacy between the treatments included in this review. Adherence to the prescribed hours of treatment varied considerably and may have had an effect on treatment success.

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.

Diagnostic test accuracy of Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners in detecting amblyogenic risk factors in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Amblyopia is a permanent visual impairment developed in early childhood. Recently, instrument-based photoscreeners have been widely used for vision screening to detect amblyopia risk factors, which is key for the prevention and treatment of amblyopia. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners in detecting risk factors for amblyopia in children.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed in October 2018 using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Twenty-one publications with a total of 5022 subjects were included. Subjects given a comprehensive examination were considered to have amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors based on the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) referral criteria guidelines.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity for Spot and Plusoptix was 87.7% and 89.4%, respectively (p = 0.38); the specificity was 78.0% and 89.9%, respectively (p = 0.90). For subjects under 7 years old (preschool children), the overall sensitivity for Spot and Plusoptix was 91.7% and 90.2%, respectively (p = 0.81); the specificity was 82.6% and 93.0%, respectively (p = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Both Spot and Plusoptix photoscreeners demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity in detecting amblyopia risk factors in children, especially at preschool ages. There was no significant difference in diagnostic test accuracy between them.

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 therapy in Asian children: factors affecting visual outcome and parents' perception of children's attitudes towards amblyopia treatment

INTRODUCTION

Amblyopia treatment in the form of glasses and/or patching in children poses a great challenge to parents. This study aimed to assess the factors that influence visual outcome in amblyopia and children's perception towards treatment.

METHODS

180 children (aged 3.0-7.0 years) with newly diagnosed amblyopia were recruited. The effects of age, gender, type of amblyopia, treatment and compliance on visual outcome at one year were assessed. Parents completed a questionnaire on children's attitudes towards amblyopia treatment.

RESULTS

150 (83%) children with a mean age of 5.2 ± 0.8 years returned for follow-up at one year. 130 (87%) had refractive amblyopia and 20 (13%) had strabismic and refractive-strabismic amblyopia. Visual acuity (VA) of 6/9 or better in the amblyopic eye was achieved in 121 (81%) children. On multivariable analysis, poor responders were more likely to have initial VA of worse than 6/15 (relative risk [RR] 4.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-11.00, p = 0.004), prescribed combined (glasses and patching) treatment (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.02-7.83, p = 0.045) and poor compliance (RR 6.10, 95% CI 1.90-19.57, p = 0.002) after adjustment for age, gender and type of amblyopia. While 7% of children initially reacted poorly to treatment, 5% remained uncooperative at the first follow-up visit. Children had difficulty with schoolwork (5%), mood changes (6%) and social problems (2%) associated with treatment.

CONCLUSION

Most children with amblyopia respond well to treatment, but more care (i.e. more parental education and closer follow-up) may be needed in children who are non-compliant and have poorer initial VA.

New advances in amblyopia therapy I: binocular therapies and pharmacologic augmentation

Amblyopia therapy options have traditionally been limited to penalisation of the non-amblyopic eye with either patching or pharmaceutical penalisation. Solid evidence, mostly from the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, has validated both number of hours a day of patching and days per week of atropine use. The use of glasses alone has also been established as a good first-line therapy for both anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia. Unfortunately, visual acuity equalisation or even improvement is not always attainable with these methods. Additionally, non-compliance with prescribed therapies contributes to treatment failures, with data supporting difficulty adhering to full treatment sessions. Interest in alternative therapies for amblyopia treatment has long been a topic of interest among researchers and clinicians alike. Incorporating new technology with an understanding of the biological basis of amblyopia has led to enthusiasm for binocular treatment of amblyopia. Early work on perceptual learning as well as more recent enthusiasm for iPad-based dichoptic training have each generated interesting and promising data for vision improvement in amblyopes. Use of pharmaceutical augmentation of traditional therapies has also been investigated. Several different drugs with unique mechanisms of action are thought to be able to neurosensitise the brain and enhance responsiveness to amblyopia therapy. No new treatment has emerged from currently available evidence as superior to the traditional therapies in common practice today. But ongoing investigation into the use of both new technology and the understanding of the neural basis of amblyopia promises alternate or perhaps better cures in the future.

Classification and diversity of amblyopia

Amblyopia is a developmental disorder that affects the spatial vision of one or both eyes in the absence of an obvious organic cause; it is associated with a history of abnormal visual experience during childhood. Subtypes have been defined based on the purported etiology, namely, strabismus (misaligned eyes) and/or anisometropia (unequal refractive error). Here we consider the usefulness of these subclassifications.

Pharmacological therapy for amblyopia

Amblyopia is the most common cause of preventable blindness in children and young adults. Most of the amblyopic visual loss is reversible if detected and treated at appropriate time. It affects 1.0 to 5.0% of the general population. Various treatment modalities have been tried like refractive correction, patching (both full time and part time), penalization and pharmacological therapy. Refractive correction alone improves visual acuity in one third of patients with anisometropic amblyopia. Various drugs have also been tried of which carbidopa & levodopa have been popular. Most of these agents are still in experimental stage, though levodopa-carbidopa combination therapy has been widely studied in human amblyopes with good outcomes. Levodopa therapy may be considered in cases with residual amblyopia, although occlusion therapy remains the initial treatment choice. Regression of effect after stoppage of therapy remains a concern. Further studies are therefore needed to evaluate the full efficacy and side effect profile of these agents.

Compliance with the prescribed occlusion treatment for amblyopia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review article is an update on the current evidence about compliance to the prescribed occlusion treatment for amblyopia. In particular, the authors focus on the predictors and causes of noncompliance and possible interventions to increase it.

RECENT FINDINGS

Compliance with prescribed occlusion treatment is often challenging. Reported rates of compliance range widely from 49% to 87%. Objective monitoring of occlusion has opened up new research opportunities and allow the design of effective therapeutic regimens. Also, predictors and causes of noncompliance have been investigated and their knowledge may help the clinician to improved compliance with prescribed occlusion treatment for amblyopia.

SUMMARY

Although many of the studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions to increase compliance to patching treatment for amblyopia have many limitations, evidences support that use of educational supports, parents, and patient understanding on the importance of patching and written information should be considered to increase compliance with patching.

The effects of monocular training on binocular functions in anisometropic amblyopia

Intensive monocular perceptual learning can improve visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and vernier acuity in the amblyopic eye in adults with amblyopia. It is however not clear how much monocular training can enhance binocular visual functions. In the current study, we aimed to evaluate effects of monocular training on a variety of binocular functions. Nineteen anisometropic amblyopes (18.5±1.26yrs, mean±s.e.) were trained in a grating contrast detection task near each individual's cutoff spatial frequency for 6-10days (630 trials/day). Visual acuity, stereoacuity, monocular and binocular contrast sensitivity functions (CSF), binocular phase combination and binocular rivalry were tested before and after training. Although monocular training can improve visual acuity and contrast sensitivity and eye dominance of the amblyopic eye, the magnitudes of improvements did not correlate with each other; the impact of monocular training on binocular phase combination was not significant. The results strongly suggest that structured monocular and binocular training is needed to fully recover deficient visual functions in anisometropic amblyopia.

Performance of Spot Photoscreener in Detecting Amblyopia Risk Factors in Chinese Pre-school and School Age Children Attending an Eye Clinic

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of Spot photoscreener in detecting amblyopia risk factors meeting 2013 the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) criteria in Chinese preschool and school-age children.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-five children (310 eyes), aged between 4 to 7 years (5.74 ± 1.2 years) underwent complete ophthalmologic examination, photoscreening, and cycloplegic retinoscopy refraction. The agreement of the results obtained with the photoscreening and retinoscopy was evaluated by linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting amblyopia risk factors were calculated based on the AAPOS 2013 guidelines. The overall effectiveness of detecting amblyopia risk factors was analyzed with Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves.

Result

The mean refractive errors measured with the Spot were: spherical equivalent (SE) = 0.70 ± 1.99 D, J0 = 0.87 ± 1.01 D, J45 = 0.09 ± 0.60 D. The mean results from retinoscopy were: SE = 1.19 ± 2.22 D, J0 = 0.77 ± 1.00 D, J45 = -0.02 ± 0.45 D. There was a strong linear agreement between results obtained from those two methods (R² = 0.88, P<0.01). Bland–Altman plot indicated a moderate agreement of cylinder values between the two methods. Based on the criteria specified by the AAPOS 2013 guidelines, the sensitivity and specificity (in respective order) for detecting hyperopia were 98.31% and 97.14%; for detecting myopia were 78.50% and 88.64%; for detecting astigmatism were 90.91% and 80.37%; for detecting anisometropia were 93.10% and 85.25%; and for detection of strabismus was 77.55% and 88.18%.

Conclusion

The refractive values measured from Spot photoscreener showed a moderate agreement with the results from cycloplegic retinoscopy refraction, however there was an overall myopic shift of -0.49D. The performance in detecting individual amblyopia risk factors was satisfactory, but could be further improved by optimizing criteria based on ROC curves.

Performance of the Plusoptix A09 photoscreener in detecting amblyopia risk factors in Chinese children attending an eye clinic

Purpose

To assess the accuracy of the Plusoptix A09 photoscreener in detecting amblyopia risk factors in children and determine referral criteria when using Plusoptix A09 for a large-scale vision screening.

Methods

Pediatric patients attending our eye clinic underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic examination that included photorefraction, orthoptic examination, anterior segment assessment, fundus examination and cycloplegic retinoscopy. The measurements were collected for statistical analyses.

Results

One hundred and seventy-eight children (mean age ± SD: 6.2±2.4 years, range: 2.2 to 14.1 years) were included in the study. The mean spherical equivalent (SE) obtained using Plusoptix A09 (P_SE) was 0.57 D lower than that obtained from cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR_SE) (P = 0.00). However, there was no statistically significant difference of Jackson cross cylinder J₀ and J₄₅ between Plusoptix A09 (P_J) and cycloplegic retinoscopy (CR_J) (P = 0.14, P = 0.26). The relationship of SE obtained from Plusoptix A09 and SE obtained from cycloplegic retinoscopy was presented as the equation: CR_SE = 0.358 + 0.776 P_SE + 0.064 P_SE² + 0.011 P_SE³. Based on the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, the Plusoptix A09 had an overall sensitivity of 94.9% and specificity of 67.5% for detecting refractive amblyopia risk factors. The sensitivity and specificity of the Plusoptix A09 for detection of strabismus were 40.7% and 98.3%, respectively; detection of amblyopia and/or strabismus was 84.7% and 63.2%, respectively.

Conclusions

The Plusoptix A09 photoscreener underestimated hyperopia and overestimated myopia according to SE when compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy. The accuracy of the Plusoptix A09 in detecting amblyopia risk factors in children could be improved by the regression equation and optimized criteria for refractive amblyopia risk factors developed in the present study. Moreover, the Plusoptix A09 photoscreener is not suitable for a large-scale strabismus screening when it is applied solely.

Prevalence of amblyopia in primary school children in Qassim province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

PURPOSE

To determine the prevalence and causes of amblyopia in primary school children in Qassim province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross sectional study, 5176 children, aged 6 to 13 years (mean - 9.53 ± 1.88 years) were evaluated. There were 2573 (49.71%) males and 2603 (50.29%) females. Distance visual acuity (V/A) was tested monocularly using a logMAR chart with and without correction. Cycloplegic refraction was performed in children with reduced vision. To determine the etiology of amblyopia, children were enrolled if there was a difference in V/A of two or more lines between eyes or an absolute reduction in acuity <20/30 in either eye, that could not be corrected by refraction. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There 202 out of 5176 (3.90%) with ambylopia. There are 98 (1.88%) amblyopic females. There was no statistical difference in gender for amblyopes (P > 0.05). The prevalence of amblyopia was statistically significant higher in the older age group (10-13 year) compared to younger age group (6 to 9 years) (P < 0.05). Unilateral amblyopia (3.24%) was more frequent than bilateral amblyopia (0.66%). The most frequent causes of amblyopia were refractive error (94.56%), of which anisometropic amblyopia was present in 77.72%, isoametropic amblyopia in 16.84% and strabismus in 5.44%.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of amblyopia in Qassim province, KSA, is 3.9% which is similar or higher than other published studies on amblyopia. Anisometropic refractive errors are the most common underlying cause for this population. We recommend implementation of visual screening programs for children with appropriate clinical and social settings for early detection and proper management of amblyopia.

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.

A randomized trial of adding a plano lens to atropine for amblyopia

BACKGROUND

Some children have residual amblyopia after treatment with atropine eyedrops for amblyopia due to strabismus and/or anisometropia. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of augmenting the effect of atropine by changing the lens over the fellow eye to plano in children with residual amblyopia.

METHODS

A total of 73 children 3 to <8 years of age (mean, 5.8 years) with stable residual amblyopia (range, 20/32 to 20/160, mean 20/63(+1)) were enrolled after at least 12 weeks of atropine treatment of the fellow eye. Participants were randomly assigned to continuing weekend atropine alone or wearing a plano lens over the fellow eye (while continuing atropine). The primary outcome was assessed at 10 weeks, and participants were followed until improvement ceased.

RESULTS

At the 10-week primary outcome visit, amblyopic-eye visual acuity had improved an average of 1.1 lines with the plano lens and 0.6 lines with atropine only (difference adjusted for baseline visual acuity = + 0.5 line; 95% CI, -0.1 to +1.2). At the primary outcome or later visit when the best-measured visual acuity was observed, the mean amblyopic-eye improvement from baseline was 1.9 lines with the plano lens and 0.8 lines with atropine only.

CONCLUSIONS

When amblyopic-eye visual acuity stops improving with atropine treatment, there may be a small benefit to augmenting atropine therapy with a plano lens over the fellow eye. However, the effect was not statistically significant, and the large confidence interval raises the possibility of no benefit or a benefit larger than we observed. A larger study would be necessary to get a more precise estimate of the treatment effect.

Visual functions in amblyopia as determinants of response to treatment

PURPOSE

To describe the visual functions in amblyopia as determinants of response to treatment.

METHODS

Sixty-nine patients with unilateral and bilateral amblyopia (114 amblyopic eyes) 3 to 15 years old (mean age: 8.80 ± 2.9 years), 40 males (58%) and 29 females (42%), were included in this study. All patients were treated by conventional occlusion 6 hours per day for mild to moderate amblyopia (visual acuity 0.70 or better) and full-time for 4 weeks followed by 6 hours per day for severe amblyopia (visual acuity 0.8 or worse). During occlusion, near activities requiring hand-eye coordination were advised. The follow-up examination was done at 3 and 6 months. Improvement in visual acuity was evaluated on the logMAR chart and correlated with the visual functions. Statistical analysis was done using Wilcoxon rank sum test (Mann-Whitney U test) and Kruskal-Wallis analysis.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant association of poor contrast sensitivity with the grade of amblyopia (P < .001). The grade of amblyopia (P < .01), accommodation (P < .01), stereopsis (P = .01), and mesopic visual acuity (P < .03) were found to have a correlation with response to amblyopia therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The grade of amblyopia (initial visual acuity) and accommodation are strong determinants of response to amblyopia therapy, whereas stereopsis and mesopic visual acuity have some value as determinants.

Advances in amblyopia: what have we learned from PEDIG trials?

Amblyopia is the most common cause of preventable visual loss in children. This article reviews treatment options, durations, and efficacy in randomized multicentered trials conducted by the Pediatric Eye Disease and Investigator Group in the last decade. Parents and patients should be counseled that many forms of treatment are efficacious, allowing the option of choice of best-tolerated treatment method. Compliance is key to successful treatment. The course of treatment is likely at least 6-12 months, with yearly follow-up suggested once amblyopia has been treated to monitor for regression.

Pediatric eye disease investigator group amblyopia treatment review

INTRODUCTION

The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG), formed in 1997, has been dedicated to clinical research of eye diseases affecting children. Over the last three years, PEDIG has studied the efficacy of amblyopia treatment regimes, and has followed the long-term outcomes of these regimes. These studies are known as the Amblyopia Treatment Studies (ATS) and have been sorted into eight categories. Four of these have been published and four are still awaiting publication.

METHOD

A survey of ophthalmologists and orthoptists attending a seminar in British Columbia, Canada. They were questioned as to how they treat amblyopia in light of the PEDIG studies.

RESULTS

Ninety percent continue to use patching as their first method of treatment in moderate amblyopia. Over 50% will patch four hours/day or more to begin treatment and 83% will use near exercises to augment the patching. Two thirds will begin patching six or more hours/day in patients with severe amblyopia. Those that use atropine, use it daily rather than on weekends. Most felt that amblyopia could be treated to age 12 years and some thought it could be treated to 14 years.

CONCLUSION

Most ophthalmologists and orthoptists taking the survey have not significantly changed their approach to amblyopia treatment in light of the recent PEDIG studies.

Effect of age on response to amblyopia treatment in children

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether age at initiation of treatment for amblyopia influences the response among children 3 to less than 13 years of age with unilateral amblyopia who have 20/40 to 20/400 amblyopic eye visual acuity.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of individual subject data from 4 recently completed randomized amblyopia treatment trials was performed to evaluate the relationship between age and improvement in logMAR amblyopic eye visual acuity. Analyses were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye visual acuity, spherical equivalent refractive error in the amblyopic eye, type of amblyopia, prior amblyopia treatment, study treatment, and protocol. Age was categorized (3 to <5 years, 5 to <7 years, and 7 to <13 years) because there was a nonlinear relationship between age and improvement in amblyopic eye visual acuity.

RESULTS

Children from 7 to less than 13 years of age were significantly less responsive to treatment than were younger age groups (children from 3 to <5 years of age or children from 5 to <7 years of age) for moderate and severe amblyopia (P < .04 for all 4 comparisons). There was no difference in treatment response between children 3 to less than 5 years of age and children 5 to less than 7 years of age for moderate amblyopia (P = .67), but there was a suggestion of greater responsiveness in children 3 to less than 5 years of age compared with children 5 to less than 7 years of age for severe amblyopia (P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

Amblyopia is more responsive to treatment among children younger than 7 years of age. Although the average treatment response is smaller in children 7 to less than 13 years of age, some children show a marked response to treatment.

Optical treatment of strabismic and combined strabismic-anisometropic amblyopia

OBJECTIVE

To determine visual acuity improvement in children with strabismic and combined strabismic-anisometropic (combined-mechanism) amblyopia treated with optical correction alone and to explore factors associated with improvement.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

We included 146 children 3 to <7 years old with previously untreated strabismic amblyopia (n = 52) or combined-mechanism amblyopia (n = 94).

METHODS

Optical treatment was provided as spectacles (prescription based on a cycloplegic refraction) that were worn for the first time at the baseline visit. Visual acuity with spectacles was measured using the Amblyopia Treatment Study HOTV visual acuity protocol at baseline and every 9 weeks thereafter until no further improvement in visual acuity. Ocular alignment was assessed at each visit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual acuity 18 weeks after baseline.

RESULTS

Overall, amblyopic eye visual acuity improved a mean of 2.6 lines (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-3.0), with 75% of children improving ≥ 2 lines and 54% improving ≥ 3 lines. Resolution of amblyopia occurred in 32% (95% CI, 24%-41%) of the children. The treatment effect was greater for strabismic amblyopia than for combined-mechanism amblyopia (3.2 vs 2.3 lines; adjusted P = 0.003). Visual acuity improved regardless of whether eye alignment improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Optical treatment alone of strabismic and combined-mechanism amblyopia results in clinically meaningful improvement in amblyopic eye visual acuity for most 3- to <7-year-old children, resolving in at least one quarter without the need for additional treatment. Consideration should be given to prescribing refractive correction as the sole initial treatment for children with strabismic or combined-mechanism amblyopia before initiating other therapies.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any of the materials discussed in this article.

Atropine treatment of amblyopia: is a swap in fixation necessary?

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of fixation on vision outcomes in patients with amblyopia undergoing atropine treatment and the validity of the "cyclo-swap test" (CST) as a method of predicting atropine efficacy.

METHOD

Sixteen children with amblyopia were included. The initial examination included a vision assessment and CST, in which fixation was assessed at 1/3 m, 6 m, and at distances less than 1/3 m. Children were treated for 10 weeks and reviewed at 5-week intervals with cessation of atropine 4 days prior. Vision and fixation were assessed at the follow-up visits. Children demonstrating no fixation swap initially were additionally observed after 1 week of atropine treatment under maximum cycloplegia.

RESULTS

Eight children demonstrated a fixation swap (FS group) to the amblyopic eye during the CST at either 1/3 or 6 m, and 8 demonstrated no fixation swap (NFS group). By the end of the 10-week treatment period, both groups demonstrated a mean visual acuity improvement of between 2 and 3 lines (FS = 0.22 log units; NFS = 0.27 log units). Six of the 8 children in the NFS group demonstrated improvement in vision, all of whom also demonstrated a fixation swap at some stage.

CONCLUSION

Vision improvement in patients using atropine is likely to be attributable to a fixation swap that occurs during the treatment phase. The CST performed at 1/3 and 6 m has little value in predicting improvements in vision; however, when performed at distances of less than 1/3 m, it may provide valuable clinical information about atropine efficacy.

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of conventional occlusion versus atropine penalization for amblyopia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, preference lists, science citation index and ongoing trials up to June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with a total of 525 amblyopic eyes were included. One trial was assessed as having a low risk of bias among these three trials, and one was assessed as having a high risk of bias.Evidence from three trials suggests atropine penalization is as effective as conventional occlusion. One trial found similar improvement in vision at six and 24 months. At six months, visual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved from baseline 3.16 lines in the occlusion and 2.84 lines in the atropine group (mean difference 0.034 logMAR; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.005 to 0.064 logMAR). At 24 months, additional improvement was seen in both groups; but there continued to be no meaningful difference (mean difference 0.01 logMAR; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04 logMAR). The second trial reported atropine to be more effective than occlusion. At six months, visual acuity improved 1.8 lines in the patching group and 3.4 lines in the atropine penalization group, and was in favor of atropine (mean difference -0.16 logMAR; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.09 logMAR). Different occlusion modalities were used in these two trials. The third trial had inherent methodological flaws and limited inference could be drawn.No difference in ocular alignment, stereo acuity and sound eye visual acuity between occlusion and atropine penalization was found. Although both treatments were well tolerated, compliance was better in atropine. Atropine penalization costs less than conventional occlusion. The results indicate that atropine penalization is as effective as 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 three trials. Atropine penalization can be used as first line treatment for amblyopia.

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

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of weekend atropine for severe amblyopia from strabismus, anisometropia, or both combined among children 3 to 12 years of age.

METHODS

We enrolled children into 2 prospective, randomized multicenter clinical trials of amblyopia therapy. Herein we report the results for severe amblyopia, 20/125 to 20/400. In Trial 1, 60 children 3 to 6 years of age (mean, 4.4 years) were randomized to weekend atropine plus a plano lens or weekend atropine plus full spectacle correction for the sound eye. In Trial 2, 40 children 7 to 12 years of age (mean, 9.3 years) were randomized to weekend atropine or 2 hours of daily patching. The visual acuity outcome was assessed at 18 weeks in Trial 1 and 17 weeks in Trial 2.

RESULTS

In Trial 1, visual acuity improved by an average of 4.5 lines in the atropine plus correction group (95% CI, 3.2-5.8 lines) and 5.1 lines in the atropine plus plano lens group (95% CI, 3.7-6.4 lines). In Trial 2, visual acuity improved by an average of 1.5 lines in the atropine group (95% CI, 0.5-2.5 lines) and 1.8 lines in the patching group (95% CI, 1.1-2.6 lines).

CONCLUSIONS

Weekend atropine can improve visual acuity in children 3 to 12 years of age with severe amblyopia. Improvement may be greater in younger children.

Anisometropic amblyopia treated with spectacle correction alone: possible factors predicting success and time to start patching

PURPOSE

To evaluate factors predicting resolution of amblyopia and the time course of improvement in VA in children 3 to 7 years old with anisometropic amblyopia treated with spectacles alone.

DESIGN

Prospective, noncomparative intervention.

METHODS

Measurement of corrected amblyopic logMAR visual acuity (VA) in newly diagnosed children at four-weekly intervals until VA stabilized or amblyopia resolved. The time course of improvement in VA and the factors related to amblyopia resolution were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty children with a mean age of 5.3 years and mean anisometropia of 2.95 diopters (D) were included. Amblyopia improved by 2 or more logMAR lines in 56 patients (93%) and resolved in 27 patients (45%), with a mean improvement in VA of 0.38 logMAR. The improvement in VA in the amblyopic eye was considerable at four to 12 weeks then reached a plateau, after which it improved only slowly. Resolution of amblyopia was related to better initial VA (0.2 to 0.6 logMAR) and lesser amounts of anisometropia (<4 D). The time to resolution ranged from four to 40 weeks, but no patient with residual amblyopia showed an improvement in VA of more than 0.1 logMAR over four consecutive visits.

CONCLUSIONS

With spectacle correction alone, 3- to 7-year-old children with previously untreated anisometropic amblyopia achieved approximately four-line improvement and resolved nearly in half. The nearly two-month plateau periods during improvement of VA should be noticed. After four months with no improvement in VA, occlusion therapy or atropine penalization may be considered.

Amblyopia

Results from recent randomised clinical trials in amblyopia should change our approach to screening for and treatment of amblyopia. Based on the current evidence, if one screening session is used, screening at school entry could be the most reasonable time. Clinicians should preferably use age-appropriate LogMAR acuity tests, and treatment should only be considered for children who are clearly not in the typical range for their age. Any substantial refractive error should be corrected before further treatment is considered and the child should be followed in spectacles until no further improvement is recorded, which can take up to 6 months. Parents and carers should then be offered an informed choice between patching and atropine drops. Successful patching regimens can last as little as 1 h or 2 h a day, and successful atropine regimens as little as one drop twice a week. Intense and extended regimens might not be needed in initial therapy.

The treatment of amblyopia

Recent studies suggest that children with amblyopia associated with anisometropia, strabismus, or both should be treated initially with best refractive correction until visual acuity is stable. This may take several months, and a proportion of children will achieve equal visual acuity with glasses alone. For residual anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia, the initial choice of patching or atropine should involve the parent and the child. The dose of prescribed patching or atropine may initially be quite modest, such as 2 hours of patching a day or twice weekly atropine. Treatment should be offered to children until at least 12 years of age and possibly to teenagers. Ongoing studies are addressing the role of undertaking near activities while patched and the role of atropine for severe amblyopia and for older amblyopic children. Future studies are needed to investigate the best treatment strategies for residual amblyopia, whether weaning treatment is needed at the end of a course, and how compliance can be enhanced.

Amblyopia: A Neuro-Ophthalmic View

Amblyopia designates monocular or binocular visual loss associated with form deprivation caused by obstruction or deformation of a light stimulus, strabismus, or uncorrected refractive error. Elegant neuroscientific studies have identified a critical period early in life in which the visual system is vulnerable to amblyopia and the site of pathology as the primary visual cortex. However, recent observations have challenged these concepts. A broader understanding of the pathophysiology of amblyopia will be critical to refining therapy for this condition.

Amblyopia characterization, treatment, and prophylaxis

Amblyopia has a 1.6-3.6% prevalence, higher in the medically underserved. It is more complex than simply visual acuity loss and the better eye has sub-clinical deficits. Functional limitations appear more extensive and loss of vision in the better eye of amblyopes more prevalent than previously thought. Amblyopia screening and treatment are efficacious, but cost-effectiveness concerns remain. Refractive correction alone may successfully treat anisometropic amblyopia and it, minimal occlusion, and/or catecholamine treatment can provide initial vision improvement that may improve compliance with subsequent long-duration treatment. Atropine penalization appears as effective as occlusion for moderate amblyopia, with limited-day penalization as effective as full-time. Cytidin-5'-diphosphocholine may hold promise as a medical treatment. Interpretation of much of the amblyopia literature is made difficult by: inaccurate visual acuity measurement at initial visit, lack of adequate refractive correction prior to and during treatment, and lack of long-term follow-up results. Successful treatment can be achieved in at most 63-83% of patients. Treatment outcome is a function of initial visual acuity and type of amblyopia, and a reciprocal product of treatment efficacy, duration, and compliance. Age at treatment onset is not predictive of outcome in many studies but detection under versus over 2-3 years of age may be. Multiple screenings prior to that age, and prompt treatment, reduce prevalence. Would a single early cycloplegic photoscreening be as, or more, successful at detection or prediction than the multiple screenings, and more cost-effective? Penalization and occlusion have minimal incidence of reverse amblyopia and/or side-effects, no significant influence on emmetropization, and no consistent effect on sign or size of post-treatment changes in strabismic deviation. There may be a physiologic basis for better age-indifferent outcome than tapped by current treatment methodologies. Infant refractive correction substantially reduces accommodative esotropia and amblyopia incidence without interference with emmetropization. Compensatory prism, alone or post-operatively, and/or minus lens treatment, and/or wide-field fusional amplitude training, may reduce risk of early onset esotropia. Multivariate screening using continuous-scale measurements may be more effective than traditional single-test dichotomous pass/fail measures. Pigmentation may be one parameter because Caucasians are at higher risk for esotropia than non-whites.

Amblyopia treatment studies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Amblyopia continues to be a major cause of vision loss in children. Several different treatment modalities exist. Research in the field of amblyopia has been very active over the past few years, and clinical practice patterns are changing.

RECENT FINDINGS

Atropine has been found to be effective in the treatment of amblyopia. Less intense patching regimens have been found to be effective as well. Many other aspects of amblyopia therapy are being investigated.

SUMMARY

Herein are current reviews of the major clinical amblyopia studies. Various treatment options are reviewed, and controversies in the field are discussed.

School vision screening, ages 5-16 years: the evidence-base for content, provision and efficacy

The optometric profession in the UK has a major role in the detection, assessment and management of ocular anomalies in children between 5 and 16 years of age. The role complements a variety of associated screening services provided across several health care sectors. The review examines the evidence-base for the content, provision and efficacy of these screening services in terms of the prevalence of anomalies such as refractive error, amblyopia, binocular vision and colour vision and considers the consequences of their curtailment. Vision screening must focus on pre-school children if the aim of the screening is to detect and treat conditions that may lead to amblyopia, whereas if the aim is to detect and correct significant refractive errors (not likely to lead to amblyopia) then it would be expedient for the optometric profession to act as the major provider of refractive (and colour vision) screening at 5-6 years of age. Myopia is the refractive error most likely to develop during primary school presenting typically between 8 and 12 years of age, thus screening at entry to secondary school is warranted. Given the inevitable restriction on resources for health care, establishing screening at 5 and 11 years of age, with exclusion of any subsequent screening, is the preferred option.

Severe amblyopia of the sound eye resulting from atropine therapy combined with optical penalization

The potential amblyogenic effect to the sound eye of atropine combined with optical penalization is powerful, and frequent patient monitoring is necessary when using this therapy. We report two cases of amblyopia developing in the previously sound eye as a result of noncompliance during atropine therapy combined with optical penalization. Both cases required active treatment to correct the reverse amblyopia. Vision returned to normal in one patient, while the second patient was lost to follow-up with poor acuity.