-
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 -
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 -
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 -
BMC Ophthalmology May 2020Many treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Amblyopia; Atropine; Child; Child, Preschool; Databases, Factual; Eyeglasses; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Sensory Deprivation; Treatment Outcome; Vision, Binocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32450849
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-020-01442-9 -
Cureus Mar 2020Introduction The benefits of atropine in the treatment of acute organophosphate (OP) poisoning has been well established, while that of oximes is still uncertain....
Introduction The benefits of atropine in the treatment of acute organophosphate (OP) poisoning has been well established, while that of oximes is still uncertain. Pralidoxime is the most often used oxime worldwide. In vitro experiments have consistently shown that oximes are effective reactivators of human acetylcholinesterase enzyme, inhibited by OP compounds. However, the clinical benefit of pralidoxime is still unclear. A recent meta-analysis has found that pralidoxime provides no significant improvement in outcome and rather may cause harm while increasing the economic burden in low-income communities where its use is the most prevalent. Objectives This study aimed to provide an updated evaluation of the efficacy of pralidoxime in addition to atropine alone in the treatment of patients with acute OP poisoning in terms of mortality, need for ventilator support, and the incidence of intermediate syndrome. The intermediate syndrome is a clinical syndrome that occurs 24 to 96 hours after the ingestion of an OP compound and is characterized by prominent weakness of neck flexors, muscles of respiration, and proximal limb muscles. Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the English language that evaluated the use of pralidoxime in individuals of any age, gender or nationality presenting with an alleged history of OP intake. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for ventilator support and the incidence of intermediate syndrome. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions. Treatment/control differences in these outcomes across included studies were combined using risk ratios (RR). Results Six randomized controlled trials (n = 646) fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including one further trial missed from the most recent systematic review. The risk of bias varied across studies, with Eddleston 2009 being of the lowest risk and Cherian 2005 being of high risk. The risk of mortality (RR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 2.41, P = 0.07) and the need for ventilator support (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.71, P = 0.08) were not significantly different between the pralidoxime and the control group. There was a significant increase in the incidence of intermediate syndrome in the pralidoxime group (RR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.62, P = 0.04). Conclusions Based on our meta-analysis of the available RCTs, pralidoxime was not shown to be beneficial in patients with acute OP poisoning. Our findings are consistent with the other literature.
PubMed: 32257715
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.7174 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when one is looking at distant objects. Interventions to slow the progression of myopia in children include multifocal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nearsightedness (myopia) causes blurry vision when one is looking at distant objects. Interventions to slow the progression of myopia in children include multifocal spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions, including spectacles, contact lenses, and pharmaceutical agents in slowing myopia progression in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; the LILACS Database; and two trial registrations up to February 2018. A top up search was done in February 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We excluded studies when most participants were older than 18 years at baseline. We also excluded studies when participants had less than -0.25 diopters (D) spherical equivalent myopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 studies (6772 participants). Twenty-one studies contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. Interventions included spectacles, contact lenses, pharmaceutical agents, and combination treatments. Most studies were conducted in Asia or in the United States. Except one, all studies included children 18 years or younger. Many studies were at high risk of performance and attrition bias. Spectacle lenses: undercorrection of myopia increased myopia progression slightly in two studies; children whose vision was undercorrected progressed on average -0.15 D (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.29 to 0.00; n = 142; low-certainty evidence) more than those wearing fully corrected single vision lenses (SVLs). In one study, axial length increased 0.05 mm (95% CI -0.01 to 0.11) more in the undercorrected group than in the fully corrected group (n = 94; low-certainty evidence). Multifocal lenses (bifocal spectacles or progressive addition lenses) yielded small effect in slowing myopia progression; children wearing multifocal lenses progressed on average 0.14 D (95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; n = 1463; moderate-certainty evidence) less than children wearing SVLs. In four studies, axial elongation was less for multifocal lens wearers than for SVL wearers (-0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; n = 896; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluating different peripheral plus spectacle lenses versus SVLs reported inconsistent results for refractive error and axial length outcomes (n = 597; low-certainty evidence). Contact lenses: there may be little or no difference between vision of children wearing bifocal soft contact lenses (SCLs) and children wearing single vision SCLs (mean difference (MD) 0.20D, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.47; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for bifocal SCL wearers than for single vision SCL wearers (MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.08; n = 300; low-certainty evidence). Two studies investigating rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPCLs) showed inconsistent results in myopia progression; these two studies also found no evidence of difference in axial elongation (MD 0.02mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; n = 415; very low-certainty evidence). Orthokeratology contact lenses were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.19; n = 106; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies comparing spherical aberration SCLs with single vision SCLs reported no difference in myopia progression nor in axial length (n = 209; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical agents: at one year, children receiving atropine eye drops (3 studies; n = 629), pirenzepine gel (2 studies; n = 326), or cyclopentolate eye drops (1 study; n = 64) showed significantly less myopic progression compared with children receiving placebo: MD 1.00 D (95% CI 0.93 to 1.07), 0.31 D (95% CI 0.17 to 0.44), and 0.34 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.60), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). Axial elongation was less for children treated with atropine (MD -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.31; n = 502) and pirenzepine (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.12; n = 326) than for those treated with placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) in two studies. Another study showed favorable results for three different doses of atropine eye drops compared with tropicamide eye drops (MD 0.78 D, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.07 for 0.1% atropine; MD 0.81 D, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05 for 0.25% atropine; and MD 1.01 D, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28 for 0.5% atropine; n = 196; low-certainty evidence) but did not report axial length. Systemic 7-methylxanthine had little to no effect on myopic progression (MD 0.07 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.24) nor on axial elongation (MD -0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.03) compared with placebo in one study (n = 77; moderate-certainty evidence). One study did not find slowed myopia progression when comparing timolol eye drops with no drops (MD -0.05 D, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.11; n = 95; low-certainty evidence). Combinations of interventions: two studies found that children treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.78 D (95% CI 0.54 to 1.02) less than children treated with placebo plus SVLs (n = 191; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported -0.37 mm (95% CI -0.47 to -0.27) axial elongation for atropine and multifocal spectacles when compared with placebo plus SVLs (n = 127; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with children treated with cyclopentolate plus SVLs, those treated with atropine plus multifocal spectacles progressed 0.36 D less (95% CI 0.11 to 0.61; n = 64; moderate-certainty evidence). Bifocal spectacles showed small or negligible effect compared with SVLs plus timolol drops in one study (MD 0.19 D, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32; n = 97; moderate-certainty evidence). One study comparing tropicamide plus bifocal spectacles versus SVLs reported no statistically significant differences between groups without quantitative results. No serious adverse events were reported across all interventions. Participants receiving antimuscarinic topical medications were more likely to experience accommodation difficulties (Risk Ratio [RR] 9.05, 95% CI 4.09 to 20.01) and papillae and follicles (RR 3.22, 95% CI 2.11 to 4.90) than participants receiving placebo (n=387; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antimuscarinic topical medication is effective in slowing myopia progression in children. Multifocal lenses, either spectacles or contact lenses, may also confer a small benefit. Orthokeratology contact lenses, although not intended to modify refractive error, were more effective than SVLs in slowing axial elongation. We found only low or very low-certainty evidence to support RGPCLs and sperical aberration SCLs.
Topics: Atropine; Child; Contact Lenses; Cyclopentolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Myopia, Degenerative; Ophthalmic Solutions; Pirenzepine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31930781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004916.pub4 -
Clinical Case Reports Nov 2019Clozapine is considered the golden standard in the treatment of therapy-resistant schizophrenia; however, it associated with bothersome side effects such as sialorrhea....
Clozapine is considered the golden standard in the treatment of therapy-resistant schizophrenia; however, it associated with bothersome side effects such as sialorrhea. Current evidence suggests that the sublingual use of atropine seems to be safe and effective and could be considered as a first-line treatment of clozapine-induced sialorrhea.
PubMed: 31788260
DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.2431 -
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 -
International Journal of Ophthalmology 2019To evaluate the effects of atropine 0.01% on slowing myopia progression.
AIM
To evaluate the effects of atropine 0.01% on slowing myopia progression.
METHODS
We searched for relevant studies in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Ovid, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wan Fang Data in Chinese. A supplementary search was conducted in OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe), the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from the dates of inception to June 30, 2018.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1079 subjects were included (505 in the atropine 0.01% group and 574 in the control group). The results showed that the atropine 0.01% group exhibited significantly greater control of axial growth than the control group [MD=-0.12, 95%CI (-0.19, -0.06)]. There was also a statistically significant difference between the atropine 0.01% and control groups in the changes in axial length [MD=-0.14, 95%CI (-0.25, -0.03)], but the quality of evidence was low. There were no significant differences between the atropine 0.01% and control groups in the overall effect with respect to diopter value, change in diopter, distance vision and intraocular pressure [MD=0.08, 95%CI (-0.27, 0.42); MD=0.09, 95%CI (-0.17, 0.36); MD= -0.01, 95%CI (-0.02, 0.00); MD=0.08, 95%CI (-0.56,0.40)]. The sensitivity analysis showed that the conclusion of the Meta-analysis is relatively stable. With respect to adverse events, there were significant differences between the atropine 0.01% and control groups [OR=0.26, 95%CI (0.11, 0.61)].
CONCLUSION
Based on the available evidence, atropine 0.01% eye drops offer benefits in controlling axial growth and safety without causing significant differences in diopter values, distance vision and intraocular pressure.
PubMed: 31456926
DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2019.08.16