Refractive Error Change and Overminus Lens Therapy for Childhood Intermittent Exotropia.

Importance: Increased myopic shift was found to be associated with 1 year of overminus spectacle treatment for children with intermittent exotropia (IXT). Persistence of myopic shift after discontinuing overminus spectacles is unknown. Objective: To compare refractive error change over 3 years in children with IXT originally treated with overminus vs nonoverminus spectacles. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was an 18-month extension of the Trial of Overminus Spectacle Therapy for Intermittent Exotropia cohort, which previously randomized children aged 3 to 10 years with IXT and baseline spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) between -6.00 diopters (D) and 1.00 D to overminus spectacles (-2.50 D for 12 months, -1.25 D for 3 months, and nonoverminus for 3 months) or nonoverminus spectacles. Children were recruited from 56 sites from July 2010 to February 2022. Data were analyzed from February 2022 to January 2024. Interventions: After trial completion at 18 months, participants were followed up at 24 and 36 months. Treatment was at investigator discretion from 18 to 36 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in SER (cycloplegic retinoscopy) from baseline to 36 months. Results: Of 386 children in the Trial of Overminus Spectacle Therapy for Intermittent Exotropia, 223 (57.8%) consented to 18 months of additional follow-up, including 124 of 196 (63.3%) in the overminus treatment group and 99 of 190 (52.1%) in the nonoverminus treatment group. Of 205 children who completed 36-month follow-up, 116 (56.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at randomization was 6.2 (2.1) years. Mean (SD) SER change from baseline to 36 months was greater in the overminus group (-0.74 [1.00] D) compared with the nonoverminus group (-0.44 [0.85] D; adjusted difference, -0.36 D; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.12; P = .003), with 30 of 112 (26.8%) in the overminus group having more than 1 D of myopic shift compared with 14 of 91 (15%) in the nonoverminus group (risk ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0). From 12 to 36 months, mean (SD) myopic shift was -0.34 (0.67) D and -0.36 (0.66) D in the overminus and nonoverminus groups, respectively (adjusted difference, -0.001 D; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.18; P = .99). Conclusions and Relevance: The greater myopic shift observed after 1 year of -2.50-D overminus lens treatment remained at 3 years. Both groups had similar myopic shift during the 2-year period after treatment weaning and cessation. The risk of myopic shift should be discussed with parents when considering overminus lens treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02807350.

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.

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.