-
Eye & Contact Lens Jul 2018Myopia occurs in more than 50% of the population in many industrialized countries and is expected to increase; complications associated with axial elongation from myopia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Myopia occurs in more than 50% of the population in many industrialized countries and is expected to increase; complications associated with axial elongation from myopia are the sixth leading cause of blindness. Thus, understanding its etiology, epidemiology, and the results of various treatment regiments may modify current care and result in a reduction in morbidity from progressive myopia. This rapid increase cannot be explained by genetics alone. Current animal and human research demonstrates that myopia development is a result of the interplay between genetic and the environmental factors. The prevalence of myopia is higher in individuals whose both parents are myopic, suggesting that genetic factors are clearly involved in myopia development. At the same time, population studies suggest that development of myopia is associated with education and the amount time spent doing near work; hence, activities increase the exposure to optical blur. Recently, there has been an increase in efforts to slow the progression of myopia because of its relationship to the development of serious pathological conditions such as macular degeneration, retinal detachments, glaucoma, and cataracts. We reviewed meta-analysis and other of current treatments that include: atropine, progressive addition spectacle lenses, orthokeratology, and multifocal contact lenses.
Topics: Atropine; Contact Lenses; Disease Progression; Eyeglasses; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Mydriatics; Myopia; Orthokeratologic Procedures; Recreation
PubMed: 29901472
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000499 -
Ophthalmology Mar 2022Comparative efficacy and safety of different concentrations of atropine for myopia control. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
TOPIC
Comparative efficacy and safety of different concentrations of atropine for myopia control.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Atropine is known to be an effective intervention to delay myopia progression. Nonetheless, no well-supported evidence exists yet to rank the clinical outcomes of various concentrations of atropine.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov on April 14, 2021. We selected studies involving atropine treatment of at least 1 year's duration for myopia control in children. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared 8 atropine concentrations (1% to 0.01%). We ranked the atropine concentrations for the corresponding outcomes by P score (estimate of probability of being best treatment). Our primary outcomes were mean annual changes in refraction (diopters/year) and axial length (AXL; millimeters/year). We extracted data on the proportion of eyes showing myopia progression and safety outcomes (photopic and mesopic pupil diameter, accommodation amplitude, and distance and near best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA]).
RESULTS
Thirty pairwise comparisons from 16 RCTs (3272 participants) were obtained. Our NMA ranked the 1%, 0.5%, and 0.05% atropine concentrations as the 3 most beneficial for myopia control, as assessed for both primary outcomes: 1% atropine (mean differences compared with control: refraction, 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-1.04]; AXL, -0.35 [-0.46 to -0.25]); 0.5% atropine (mean differences compared with control: refraction, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.40-1.00]; AXL, -0.23 [-0.38 to -0.07]); 0.05% atropine (mean differences compared with control: refraction, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.17-1.07]; AXL, -0.25 [-0.44 to -0.06]). In terms of myopia control as assessed by relative risk (RR) for overall myopia progression, 0.05% was ranked as the most beneficial concentration (RR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.27-0.57]). The risk for adverse effects tended to rise as the atropine concentration was increased, although this tendency was not evident for distance BCVA. No valid network was formed for near BCVA.
DISCUSSION
The ranking probability for efficacy was not proportional to dose (i.e., 0.05% atropine was comparable with that of high-dose atropine [1% and 0.5%]), although those for pupil size and accommodation amplitude were dose related.
Topics: Administration, Ophthalmic; Adolescent; Atropine; Axial Length, Eye; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Mydriatics; Myopia; Network Meta-Analysis; Ophthalmic Solutions; Treatment Outcome; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 34688698
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.10.016 -
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology... 2019Atropine eye drops is an emerging therapy for myopia control. This article reviews the recent clinical trials to provide a better understanding of the use of atropine... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Atropine eye drops is an emerging therapy for myopia control. This article reviews the recent clinical trials to provide a better understanding of the use of atropine eye drops on myopia progression.
METHODS
All randomized clinical trials of atropine eye drops for myopia progression in the literatures were reviewed.
RESULTS
Atropine eye drops 1% conferred the strongest efficacy on myopia control. However, its use was limited by the side effects of blurred near vision and photophobia. ATOM 2 study evaluated 0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.01% atropine on 400 myopic children, and suggested that 0.01% is the optimal concentration with good efficacy and minimal side effects. Since then, the use of atropine eye drops has been transitioned from high-concentration to low-concentration worldwide. Recent Low-concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study evaluated 0.05%, 0.025%, 0.01% atropine eye drops and placebo group in 438 myopic children. The study firstly provided placebo-compared evidence of low-concentration atropine eye drops in myopia control. Furthermore, both efficacy and side effects followed a concentration-dependent response within 0.01% to 0.05% atropine. Among them, 0.05% atropine was the optimal concentration to achieve best efficacy and safety profile.
CONCLUSIONS
Low concentration atropine is effective in myopia control. The widespread use of low-concentration atropine, especially in East Asia, may help prevent the myopia progression for the high-risk children. Further investigations on the rebound phenomenon following drops cessation, and longer-term individualized treatment approach should be warranted.
Topics: Atropine; Disease Progression; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Mydriatics; Myopia, Degenerative; Ophthalmic Solutions; Refraction, Ocular
PubMed: 31478936
DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000256 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Jun 2017Some uncertainty about the clinical value and dosing of atropine for the treatment of myopia in children remains. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Some uncertainty about the clinical value and dosing of atropine for the treatment of myopia in children remains.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy vs the adverse effects of various doses of atropine in the therapy for myopia in children.
DATA SOURCES
Data were obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to April 30, 2016. The reference lists of published reviews and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for additional relevant studies. Key search terms included myopia, refractive errors, and atropine. Only studies published in English were included.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that enrolled patients younger than 18 years with myopia who received atropine in at least 1 treatment arm and that reported the annual rate of myopia progression and/or any adverse effects of atropine therapy were included in the analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by Q, H, and I2 statistics, and a meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration 6 aspects of bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk for bias.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was a difference in efficacy and the presence of adverse effects at different doses of atropine vs control conditions. The secondary outcomes included the differences in adverse effects between Asian and white patients.
RESULTS
Nineteen unique studies involving 3137 unique children were included in the analysis. The weighted mean differences between the atropine and control groups in myopia progression were 0.50 diopters (D) per year (95% CI, 0.24-0.76 D per year) for low-dose atropine, 0.57 D per year (95% CI, 0.43-0.71 D per year) for moderate-dose atropine, and 0.62 D per year (95% CI, 0.45-0.79 D per year) for high-dose atropine (P < .001), which translated to a high effect size (Cohen d, 0.97, 1.76, and 1.94, respectively). All doses of atropine, therefore, were equally beneficial with respect to myopia progression (P = .15). High-dose atropine were associated with more adverse effects, such as the 43.1% incidence of photophobia compared with 6.3% for low-dose atropine and 17.8% for moderate-dose atropine (χ22 = 7.05; P = .03). In addition, differences in the incidence of adverse effects between Asian and white patients were not identified (χ21 = 0.81; P = .37 for photophobia).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This meta-analysis suggests that the efficacy of atropine is dose independent within this range, whereas the adverse effects are dose dependent.
Topics: Atropine; Child; Disease Progression; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Mydriatics; Myopia; Refraction, Ocular
PubMed: 28494063
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1091 -
Eye (London, England) Jan 2019The prevalence of myopia is increasing globally. Complications of myopia are associated with huge economic and social costs. It is believed that high myopia in adulthood... (Review)
Review
The prevalence of myopia is increasing globally. Complications of myopia are associated with huge economic and social costs. It is believed that high myopia in adulthood can be traced back to school age onset myopia. Therefore, it is crucial and urgent to implement effective measures of myopia control, which may include preventing myopia onset as well as retarding myopia progression in school age children. The mechanism of myopia is still poorly understood. There are some evidences to suggest excessive expansion of Bruch's membrane, possibly in response to peripheral hyperopic defocus, and it may be one of the mechanisms leading to the uncontrolled axial elongation of the globe. Atropine is currently the most effective therapy for myopia control. Recent clinical trials demonstrated low-dose atropine eye drops such as 0.01% resulted in retardation of myopia progression, with significantly less side effects compared to higher concentration preparation. However, there remain a proportion of patients who are poor responders, in whom the optimal management remains unclear. Proposed strategies include stepwise increase of atropine dosing, and a combination of low-dose atropine with increase outdoor time. This review will focus on the current understanding of epidemiology, pathophysiology in myopia and highlight recent clinical trials using atropine in the school-aged children, as well as the treatment strategy in clinical implementation in hyperopic, pre-myopic and myopic children.
Topics: Atropine; Humans; Mydriatics; Myopia; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Refraction, Ocular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29891900
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0139-7 -
Eye & Contact Lens May 2020Myopia is a global problem that is increasing at an epidemic rate in the world. Although the refractive error can be corrected easily, myopes, particularly those with... (Review)
Review
Myopia is a global problem that is increasing at an epidemic rate in the world. Although the refractive error can be corrected easily, myopes, particularly those with high myopia, are susceptible to potentially blinding eye diseases later in life. Despite a plethora of myopia research, the molecular/cellular mechanisms underlying the development of myopia are not well understood, preventing the search for the most effective pharmacological control. Consequently, several approaches to slowing down myopia progression in the actively growing eyes of children have been underway. So far, atropine, an anticholinergic blocking agent, has been most effective and is used by clinicians in off-label ways for myopia control. Although the exact mechanisms of its action remain elusive and debatable, atropine encompasses a complex interplay with receptors on different ocular tissues at multiple levels and, hence, can be categorized as a shotgun approach to myopia treatment. This review will provide a brief overview of the biological mechanisms implicated in mediating the effects of atropine in myopia control.
Topics: Atropine; Child; Disease Progression; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Mydriatics; Myopia; Ophthalmic Solutions; Refraction, Ocular
PubMed: 31899695
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000677 -
Ophthalmology Feb 2023Repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy is an emerging treatment for myopia control. Nevertheless, previous studies are limited by open-label design. Our study aimed... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
Repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy is an emerging treatment for myopia control. Nevertheless, previous studies are limited by open-label design. Our study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of RLRL therapy in controlling myopia progression compared to a sham device with only 10% of the original power.
DESIGN
Randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 112 Chinese children aged 7 to 12 years with myopia of at least -0.50 diopter (D), astigmatism of 1.50 D or less, and anisometropia of 1.50 D or less.
METHODS
Participants were assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to the RLRL group or the sham device control group, following a schedule of 3 minutes per session, twice daily, with an interval between sessions of at least 4 hours. The RLRL therapy was provided by a desktop red-light therapy device and administered at home. The sham device was the same device but with only 10% of the original device's power. Cycloplegic refraction and axial length (AL) were measured at baseline and 6 months.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Changes in cycloplegic spherical equivalence refraction (SER) and AL between 2 groups were compared using a generalized estimating equation (GEE).
RESULTS
A total of 111 children were included in the analysis (n = 56 in the RLRL group and n = 55 in the sham device control group). The mean SER change over 6 months was 0.06 ± 0.30 D in the RLRL group and -0.11 ± 0.33 D in the sham device control group (P = 0.003), with respective mean increases in AL of 0.02 ± 0.11 mm and 0.13 ± 0.10 mm (P < 0.001). In the multivariate GEE models, children in the RLRL group showed less myopia progression and axial elongation than those in the sham device control group (SER: coefficient, 0.167 D; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.050-0.283 D; P = 0.005; AL: coefficient, -0.101 mm; 95% CI, -0.139 to -0.062 mm; P < 0.001). No treatment-related adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
In myopic children, RLRL therapy with 100% power significantly reduced myopia progression over 6 months compared with those treated with a sham device of 10% original power. The RLRL treatment was well tolerated without treatment-related adverse effects.
Topics: Humans; Child; Mydriatics; East Asian People; Myopia; Refraction, Ocular; Phototherapy; Disease Progression
PubMed: 36049646
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.08.024 -
Ophthalmology Apr 2016To determine the effectiveness of different interventions to slow down the progression of myopia in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To determine the effectiveness of different interventions to slow down the progression of myopia in children.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 2014. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions for controlling the progression of myopia in children with a treatment duration of at least 1 year for analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcomes were mean annual change in refraction (diopters/year) and mean annual change in axial length (millimeters/year).
RESULTS
Thirty RCTs (involving 5422 eyes) were identified. Network meta-analysis showed that in comparison with placebo or single vision spectacle lenses, high-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.68 [0.52-0.84]; axial length change: -0.21 [-0.28 to -0.16]), moderate-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53 [0.28-0.77]; axial length change: -0.21 [-0.32 to -0.12]), and low-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53 [0.21-0.85]; axial length change: -0.15 [-0.25 to -0.05]) markedly slowed myopia progression. Pirenzepine (refraction change: 0.29 [0.05-0.52]; axial length change: -0.09 [-0.17 to -0.01]), orthokeratology (axial length change: -0.15 [-0.22 to -0.08]), and peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses (axial length change: -0.11 [-0.20 to -0.03]) showed moderate effects. Progressive addition spectacle lenses (refraction change: 0.14 [0.02-0.26]; axial length change: -0.04 [-0.09 to -0.01]) showed slight effects.
CONCLUSIONS
This network analysis indicates that a range of interventions can significantly reduce myopia progression when compared with single vision spectacle lenses or placebo. In terms of refraction, atropine, pirenzepine, and progressive addition spectacle lenses were effective. In terms of axial length, atropine, orthokeratology, peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses, pirenzepine, and progressive addition spectacle lenses were effective. The most effective interventions were pharmacologic, that is, muscarinic antagonists such as atropine and pirenzepine. Certain specially designed contact lenses, including orthokeratology and peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses, had moderate effects, whereas specially designed spectacle lenses showed minimal effect.
Topics: Atropine; Axial Length, Eye; Databases, Factual; Eyeglasses; Humans; Mydriatics; Myopia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Refraction, Ocular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26826749
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.11.010 -
Translational Vision Science &... Oct 2022To compare the treatment efficacy between repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy and 0.01% atropine eye drops for myopia control. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
To compare the treatment efficacy between repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy and 0.01% atropine eye drops for myopia control.
METHODS
A single-masked, single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted on children 7 to 15 years old with cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER) ≤ -1.00 diopter (D) and astigmatism ≤ 2.50 D. Participants were randomly assigned to the RLRL group or low-dose atropine (LDA, 0.01% atropine eye drops) group and were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RLRL treatment was provided by a desktop light therapy device that emits 650-nm red light. The primary outcome was the change in axial length (AL), and the secondary outcome was the change in SER.
RESULTS
Among 62 eligible children equally randomized to each group (31 in the RLRL group, 31 in the LDA group), 60 children were qualified for analysis. The mean 1-year change in AL was 0.08 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.14) in the RLRL group and 0.33 mm (95% CI, 0.27-0.38) in the LDA group, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.24 mm (95% CI, -0.32 to -0.17; P < 0.001). The 1-year change in SER was -0.03 D (95% CI, -0.01 to -0.08) in the RLRL group and -0.60 D (95% CI, -0.7 to -0.48) in the LDA group (MD = 0.57 D; 95% CI, 0.40-0.73; P < 0.001). The progression of AL < 0.1 mm was 53.2% and 9.7% (P < 0.001) in the RLRL and LDA groups, respectively. For AL ≥ 0.36 mm, progression was 9.7% and 50.0% (P < 0.001) in the RLRL and LDA groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, RLRL was more effective for controlling AL and myopia progression over 12 months of use compared with 0.01% atropine eye drops.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
RLRL therapy significantly slows axial elongation and myopia progression compared with 0.01% atropine; thus, it is an effective alternative treatment for myopia control in children.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Atropine; Mydriatics; Myopia; Refraction, Ocular; Ophthalmic Solutions
PubMed: 36269184
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.10.33 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2010Anterior uveitis is rare, with an annual incidence of 12/100,000 population, although it is more common in Finland (annual incidence of 23/100,000), probably because of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Anterior uveitis is rare, with an annual incidence of 12/100,000 population, although it is more common in Finland (annual incidence of 23/100,000), probably because of genetic factors, such as high frequency of HLA-B27 in the population. It is often self-limiting, but can, in some cases, lead to complications such as posterior synechiae, cataract, glaucoma, and chronic uveitis.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of anti-inflammatory eye drops on acute anterior uveitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to November 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found six systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: corticosteroids, mydriatics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug eye drops.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Incidence; Mydriatics; Ophthalmic Solutions; Uveitis, Anterior
PubMed: 21736765
DOI: No ID Found