Acquired esotropia: subjective and objective outcomes

Cost and quality of life of overlooked eye care needs of children

Background

The objective of this research was to conduct a systematic review and cost analysis to summarize, from the Ministry of Health perspective, the costs families might incur because of their child’s prescription for refractive errors and amblyopia correction.

Methods

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, HEED, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library as well as the gray literature were searched. Systematic review was conducted using EPPI-Reviewer 4. Percentage difference in cost of glasses and patches per patient per various diagnoses were computed. The cost of glasses and patches was projected over a 5-year time horizon. Cost-utility analysis was performed.

Results

In total, 302 records were retrieved from multiple databases and an additional 48 records were identified through gray literature search. From these, a total of 14 studies (10,388 subjects) were eligible for quantitative analysis. The cost of glasses increased significantly for congenital cataract patients to US$1,820, esotropia patients to US$840, myopes to US$411, amblyopes (mixed) to US$916, anisometropes to US$521, and patients with strabismus to US$728 over a 5-year period making them unaffordable for low-income families. Incremental cost of glasses of congenital cataract patients with delayed treatment was computed to be US$1,690 per health utility gained. Incremental cost of glasses for high refractive error was US$93 per health utility gained in non-compliant children. For amblyopia patients, incremental cost of glasses per quality-adjusted life years gained was US$3,638.

Conclusion

Cost of corrective lenses is associated with significant financial burden and thus other means of mitigating costs should be considered. Eyesight problems in children are perceived as low-priority health needs. Thus, educational interventions on substantial visual deficits of not wearing glasses should be offered to families and governmental health agencies.

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.