-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024Early-onset myopia increases the risk of irreversible high myopia. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose atropine for myopia control... (Review)
Review
Early-onset myopia increases the risk of irreversible high myopia. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose atropine for myopia control in children with premyopia through meta-analysis using random-effects models. Effect sizes were calculated using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were conducted until 20 December 2023, without language restrictions. Four studies involving 644 children with premyopia aged 4-12 years were identified, with atropine concentrations ranging from 0.01% to 0.05%. The analysis focused on myopia incidence and atropine-related adverse events. Lower myopia incidence (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97 D/y; = 0.03) and reduction in rapid myopia shift (≥0.5 D/1y) (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96 D/y; < 0.01) were observed in the 12-24-month period. Spherical equivalent and axial length exhibited attenuated progression in the atropine group. No major adverse events were detected in either group, whereas the incidence of photophobia and allergic conjunctivitis did not vary in the 12-24-month period. Our meta-analysis supports atropine's efficacy and safety for delaying myopia incidence and controlling progression in children with premyopia. However, further investigation is warranted due to limited studies.
PubMed: 38592670
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051506 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024To comprehensively assess rebound effects by comparing myopia progression during atropine treatment and after discontinuation. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE,...
To comprehensively assess rebound effects by comparing myopia progression during atropine treatment and after discontinuation. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to 20 September 2023, using the keywords "myopia," "rebound," and "discontinue." Language restrictions were not applied, and reference lists were scrutinized for relevant studies. Our study selection criteria focused on randomized control trials and interventional studies involving children with myopia, specifically those treated with atropine or combination therapies for a minimum of 6 months, followed by a cessation period of at least 1 month. The analysis centered on reporting annual rates of myopia progression, considering changes in spherical equivalent (SE) or axial length (AL). Data extraction was performed by three independent reviewers, and heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics. A random-effects model was applied, and effect sizes were determined through weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals Our primary outcome was the evaluation of rebound effects on spherical equivalent or axial length. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on cessation and treatment durations, dosage levels, age, and baseline SE to provide a nuanced understanding of the data. The analysis included 13 studies involving 2060 children. Rebound effects on SE were significantly higher at 6 months (WMD, 0.926 D/y; 95%CI, 0.288-1.563 D/y; = .004) compared to 12 months (WMD, 0.268 D/y; 95%CI, 0.077-0.460 D/y; = .006) after discontinuation of atropine. AL showed similar trends, with higher rebound effects at 6 months (WMD, 0.328 mm/y; 95%CI, 0.165-0.492 mm/y; < .001) compared to 12 months (WMD, 0.121 mm/y; 95%CI, 0.02-0.217 mm/y; = .014). Sensitivity analyses confirmed consistent results. Shorter treatment durations, younger age, and higher baseline SE levels were associated with more pronounced rebound effects. Transitioning or stepwise cessation still caused rebound effects but combining optical therapy with atropine seemed to prevent the rebound effects. Our meta-analysis highlights the temporal and dose-dependent rebound effects after discontinuing atropine. Individuals with shorter treatment durations, younger age, and higher baseline SE tend to experience more significant rebound effects. Further research on the rebound effect is warranted. [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=463093], identifier [registration number].
PubMed: 38318144
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1343698 -
Archivos de La Sociedad Espanola de... Oct 2023The purpose of this investigation is to determine the efficacy of orthokeratology (OK) compared to orthokeratology combined with atropine (AOK) for the control of myopia... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this investigation is to determine the efficacy of orthokeratology (OK) compared to orthokeratology combined with atropine (AOK) for the control of myopia in children. A systematic review that included systematic reviews with meta-analyses, as well as randomized and controlled clinical trials, was carried out in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, Science Direct databases, as well as a manual search. Of the Q1-Q4 journals of the Scimago Journal & Country Rank, published in the last 5 years in English and Spanish. Eighteen studies that met the eligibility criteria were considered. The articles selected included 6,866 patients for analysis, where orthokeratology combined with 0.01% atropine was found to be more effective due to its ability to reduce the progression of myopia and axial elongation. In our investigation, it was determined that there could be an additive effect in the combination of 0.01% atropine with orthokeratology in a period of 1-2 years of treatment in patients with mild myopia; however, more multiethnic studies should be carried out, in where a correct evaluation of the progression of myopia, genetic and environmental factors that may influence the results is considered.
PubMed: 37619667
DOI: 10.1016/j.oftale.2023.08.001 -
Cureus Jan 2024Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is occasionally an inevitable side effect of neuraxial anesthesia, which can happen after spinal anesthesia or if an accidental dural... (Review)
Review
Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is occasionally an inevitable side effect of neuraxial anesthesia, which can happen after spinal anesthesia or if an accidental dural puncture (ADP) happens during epidural anesthesia. The treatment and prevention options for PDPH differ widely from one institution to another. The management of PDPH is heterogeneous in many institutions because of the absence of clear guidelines and protocols for the management of PDPH. This study aimed to summarize all articles published during the past decade that discussed the treatment or prevention of PDPH. From 2013 to 2023, 345 publications were filtered for all treatment and prevention approaches used for PDPH patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were followed for conducting this systematic review, and 38 articles were included for analysis and review. Existing data come from small randomized clinical trials and retrospective or prospective cohort studies. This review supports the effect of oral pregabalin and intravenous aminophylline in both treatment and prevention. Intravenous mannitol, intravenous hydrocortisone, triple prophylactic regimen, and neostigmine plus atropine combination showed effective and beneficial outcomes. On the other hand, neither neuraxial morphine nor epidural dexamethasone showed promising results. Consequently, the use of neuraxial morphine or epidural dexamethasone for the prevention of PDPH remains questionable. Regarding the posture of the patient and its consequences on the incidence of the headache, lateral decubitus is better than a sitting position, and a prone position is better than a supine position. Smaller non-cutting needles play a role in avoiding PDPH. Minimally invasive nerve blocks, including sphenopalatine ganglion or greater occipital nerves, are satisfyingly effective. Epidural blood patches remain the more invasive but the gold standard and ultimate solution in patients resisting medical therapy. This study highlights the need for larger research to define the best approach to prevent and treat PDPH.
PubMed: 38361721
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52330 -
BMC Ophthalmology Dec 2020The effect and safety of atropine on delaying the progression of myopia has been extensively studied, but its optimal dose is still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effect and safety of atropine on delaying the progression of myopia has been extensively studied, but its optimal dose is still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of atropine in controlling the progression of myopia, and to explore the relationship between the dose of atropine and the effectiveness of controlling the progression of myopia.
METHODS
This work was done through the data searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The Cochrane Handbook was also used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. In addition, a meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Myopia progression was mitigated greater in the atropine treatment group than that in the control group, with MD = - 0.80, 95% CI (- 0.94, - 0.66) during the whole observation period. There was a statistical difference among 0.05, 0.5, and 1.0% atropine (P = 0.004). In addition, less axial elongation was shown, with MD = - 0.26, 95% CI (- 0.33, - 0.18) during the whole observation period.
CONCLUSION
The effectiveness of atropine in controlling the progression of myopia was dose related. A 0.05% atropine was likely to be the optimal dose.
Topics: Atropine; Disease Progression; Humans; Myopia
PubMed: 33287746
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-020-01746-w -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Nov 2022To provide contemporary and future estimates of childhood myopia prevalence in Africa. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To provide contemporary and future estimates of childhood myopia prevalence in Africa.
METHODS
A systematic online literature search was conducted for articles on childhood (≤18 years) myopia (spherical equivalent [SE] ≤ -0.50D; high myopia: SE ≤ -6.00D) in Africa. Population- or school-based cross-sectional studies published from 1 Jan 2000 to 30 May 2021 were included. Meta-analysis using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was performed to estimate the prevalence of childhood myopia and high myopia. Myopia prevalence from subgroup analyses for age groups and settings were used as baseline for generating a prediction model using linear regression.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies from 19 (of 54) African countries were included in the meta-analysis (N = 737,859). Overall prevalence of childhood myopia and high myopia were 4.7% (95% CI: 3.3%-6.5%) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2%-1.1%), respectively. Estimated prevalence across the African regions was highest in the North (6.8% [95% CI: 4.0%-10.2%]), followed by Southern (6.3% [95% CI: 3.9%-9.1%]), East (4.7% [95% CI: 3.1%-6.7%]) and West (3.5% [95% CI: 1.9%-6.3%]) Africa. Prevalence from 2011 to 2021 was approximately double that from 2000 to 2010 for all studies combined, and between 1.5 and 2.5 times higher for ages 5-11 and 12-18 years, for boys and girls and for urban and rural settings, separately. Childhood myopia prevalence is projected to increase in urban settings and older children to 11.1% and 10.8% by 2030, 14.4% and 14.1% by 2040 and 17.7% and 17.4% by 2050, respectively; marginally higher than projected in the overall population (16.4% by 2050).
CONCLUSIONS
Childhood myopia prevalence has approximately doubled since 2010, with a further threefold increase predicted by 2050. Given this trajectory and the specific public health challenges in Africa, it is imperative to implement basic myopia prevention programmes, enhance spectacle coverage and ophthalmic services and generate more data to understand the changing myopia epidemiology to mitigate the expanding risk of the African population.
Topics: Adolescent; Africa; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Myopia; Prevalence; Rural Population
PubMed: 35959749
DOI: 10.1111/opo.13035 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atropine for slowing myopia progression and to investigate whether the treatment effect remains constant with continuing...
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atropine for slowing myopia progression and to investigate whether the treatment effect remains constant with continuing treatment. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to May 2021, and the language was limited to English. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies involving atropine in at least one intervention and placebo/non-atropine treatment in another as the control were included and subgroup analysis based on low dose (0.01%), moderate dose (0.01%-<0.5%), and high dose (0.5-1.0%) were conducted. The Cochrane Collaboration and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of RCTs and cohort studies, respectively. Twelve RCTs and fifteen cohort studies involving 5,069 children aged 5 to 15 years were included. The weighted mean differences in myopia progression between the atropine and control groups were 0.73 diopters (D), 0.67 D, and 0.35 D per year for high-dose, moderate-dose, and low-dose atropine, respectively (χ = 13.76; = 0.001, = 85.5%). After removing studies that provided extreme findings, atropine demonstrated a significant dose-dependent effect on both refractive change and axial elongation, with higher dosages of atropine resulting in less myopia progression ( = 0.85; = 0.004) and less axial elongation ( = -0.94; = 0.005). Low-dose atropine showed less myopia progression (-0.23 D; = 0.005) and less axial elongation (0.09 mm, < 0.001) in the second year than in the first year, whereas in high-dose atropine more axial elongation (-0.15 mm, = 0.003) was observed. The higher dose of atropine was associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects, such as photophobia with an odds ratio (OR) of 163.57, compared with an OR of 6.04 for low-dose atropine and 8.63 for moderate-dose atropine ( = 0.03). Both the efficacy and adverse effects of atropine are dose-dependent in slowing myopia progression in children. The efficacy of high-dose atropine was reduced after the first year of treatment, whereas low-dose atropine had better efficacy in a longer follow-up period.
PubMed: 35096861
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.756398 -
Paediatrics & Child Health May 2022Sialorrhea in children can be associated with adverse physical and social effects. Treatment using anticholinergic medications has been shown to offer symptomatic...
BACKGROUND
Sialorrhea in children can be associated with adverse physical and social effects. Treatment using anticholinergic medications has been shown to offer symptomatic relief, but there is no consensus regarding which treatment is the most efficacious.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the effectiveness of anticholinergic medications for sialorrhea in children.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and the Web of Science from inception until April 29, 2020. Studies reporting original data on the efficacy of anticholinergic medications in the management of sialorrhea in children aged 0 to 17 years of age were included. This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. Data on study design, setting, population, pharmacologic intervention(s), comparator(s), outcomes, and results were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 2,800 studies of which 27 articles were included in the synthesis, including five randomized controlled trials. Each anticholinergic undergoing experimental study (glycopyrrolate, scopolamine/hyoscine, trihexyphenidyl/benzhexol, benztropine, and atropine) showed evidence of efficacy. Adverse side effects were common. Significant heterogeneity exists in the studies' methodology and the variability of outcome measures used between studies precluded a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Glycopyrrolate, scopolamine/hyoscine, trihexyphenidyl/benzhexol, benztropine, and atropine have all shown efficacy in the treatment of sialorrhea in children. The small number of reports and the variability in study design precluded a meta-analysis. More studies are needed with uniformity in outcome measures to help guide evidence-based decision making. A guidance table is presented.
PubMed: 35599670
DOI: 10.1093/pch/pxab051 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019Amblyopia 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...
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.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31461545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006460.pub3 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021To date, guidelines on the impact and value of atropine combined with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis have not been well established or well defined. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To date, guidelines on the impact and value of atropine combined with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis have not been well established or well defined. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of combined atropine and omeprazole therapy for the management of patients with acute gastritis.
METHODS
Through searching the electronic database, the related literature of the combination of atropine with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis were reviewed. A meta-analysis was performed after literature selection according to inclusion criteria. The treatment efficiency and the incidence of adverse reactions were used as the main outcome indicators. The odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the two treatment regimens were analyzed.
RESULTS
This study analyzed 11 articles from the literature with a total of 1,053 subjects. The combination of atropine and omeprazole significantly improved the clinical outcomes of patients with acute gastritis compared to patients treated with combined anisodamine and omeprazole (control group). The effective rate of combined atropine and omeprazole treatment was 1.21 times higher than that observed with the control group, and the incidence of adverse reactions was 0.41 times that of the control group. Atropine combined with omeprazole significantly alleviated the clinical symptoms of the patients. The total treatment time was shortened by 0.57 days, duration of abdominal pain was shortened by 2.82 days, duration of diarrhea was reduced by 1.99 days, and the duration of nausea and vomiting was shortened by 2.68 days compared to the control group.
DISCUSSION
The combination of atropine with omeprazole in the treatment of acute gastritis demonstrated a high effective rate with few adverse reactions than. It was effective at alleviating the clinical symptoms associated with acute gastritis. The results of this study provide support for the clinical implementation of combined atropine and omeprazole in the treatment of patients with acute gastritis.
Topics: Atropine; Gastritis; Humans; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34628879
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1868