Amblyopia treatment outcomes in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders.

PURPOSE: To compare amblyopia treatment outcomes between patients with neurodevelopmental disorders and their typically developing peers. METHODS: Of 2,311 patients diagnosed with amblyopia between 2010 and 2014 at Boston Children's Hospital, 460 met inclusion criteria (age 2-12 with anisometropic, strabismic, or mixed amblyopia [interocular difference (IOD) ≥2 lines]). Treatment and visual outcomes were analyzed according to neurodevelopmental status: neurodevelopmental delay (DD) versus typical development (TD). RESULTS: The DD group (n = 54) and TD group (n = 406) were similar in demographics, amblyogenic risk factors, baseline visual measures, prescribed therapy, and adherence (P ≥ 0.10). Between-visit follow-up time was longer for the DD group (0.65 [0.42- 0.97] years) than for the TD group (0.5 [0.36-0.82] years; P = 0.023). IOD improved similarly in each group by the last visit (DD, -0.15 logMAR [-0.31 to -0.02]; TD, -0.2 logMAR [-0.38 to -0.1]; P = 0.09). Each group reached amblyopia resolution by the last visit at similar frequencies (DD, 23/54 [43%]; TD, 211/406 [52%]; P > 0.2). DD diagnosis did not independently influence amblyopia resolution (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12; P = 0.17), but each additional month of interval time between follow-up visits reduced the likelihood of resolution by 2.7% (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DD and those with TD responded similarly to amblyopia therapy; however, follow-up intervals were longer in patients with DD and correlated with the likelihood of persistent amblyopia, suggesting that greater efforts at assuring follow-up may benefit patients with DD.

Association of Neighborhood Child Opportunity Index with presenting visual acuity in amblyopic children.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the use of a novel measure of neighborhood quality, the Child Opportunity Index (COI), for investigating health disparities in pediatric ophthalmology. METHODS: This study included children 2-12 years of age from a registry of patients diagnosed with amblyopia at an urban pediatric hospital between 2010 and 2014. Children previously treated for amblyopia were excluded. Patient demographics, residential addresses, and logMAR visual acuities were collected. The association between visual acuity at presentation and COI was examined using linear mixed-effects models adjusting for individual-level factors, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type. RESULTS: This study included 1,050 amblyopic children, of whom 317 (37%) were non-White and 149 (19%) were Hispanic; 461 (44%) had public insurance. Regarding residence, 129 (12%) lived in areas of very low opportunity (COI <20); 489 (47%) in areas of very high opportunity (COI ≥80). Children residing in the lowest opportunity neighborhoods correctly identified approximately two fewer letters at presentation with their better-seeing eye compared with children from the highest opportunity neighborhoods after adjusting for individual-level factors (-0.0090 logMAR per 20 unit increase in COI; 95% CI, -0.0172 to -0.0008; P = 0.031). No difference was appreciated in the worse-seeing eye. CONCLUSIONS: Amblyopic children residing in communities with low neighborhood opportunity had slightly worse visual acuity in the better-seeing eye at presentation. Although statistically significant in the better-seeing eye, the two-letter difference attributable to neighborhood environment may not be clinically significant, and the impact of this disparity on treatment outcomes deserves further investigation.

Subthreshold Amblyopia: Characterization of a New Cohort.

PURPOSE: Published studies of amblyopia include only patients with visual acuity (VA) worse than 20/40 in one or both eyes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patients diagnosed and treated as amblyopic despite not meeting traditional VA criteria for amblyopia. DESIGN: Retrospective clinical cohort study. METHODS: Setting: Institutional practice. PATIENT POPULATION: All patients diagnosed with amblyopia at Boston Children's Hospital between 2010 and 2014. INCLUSION CRITERIA: VA better than 20/40 but not correctable to 20/20 in one or both eyes; age 2 to 12 years. OBSERVATIONS: Demographics, VA, baseline characteristics. OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution, defined as VA 20/20 in both eyes; stereopsis at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Of 2311 patients reviewed, 464 (20.1%) had subthreshold amblyopia. A majority (61.7%) had an amblyogenic factor, most commonly anisometropia (32.8%). Patients were followed for a median of 3.1 years; nearly all (97.5%) were treated. Of 318 patients who returned for follow-up, 47.8% achieved resolution, including 55.7% of treatment-naïve patients, and 62.5% (5 of 8 patients) offered observation alone. Median stereopsis improved by 0.4 log units in those who achieved resolution, with no change in those with persistent amblyopia. In the multivariate analysis, a longer length of follow-up was significantly associated with resolution of subthreshold amblyopia (odds ratio: 1.38; 95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.57, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with subthreshold amblyopia represent a sizeable cohort in real-world amblyopia practice. When offered treatment, half achieved 20/20 vision in both eyes with improved stereopsis as well. Further studies are needed to assess whether observation alone would result in similar outcomes.

Effect of Sequential and Simultaneous Patching Regimens in Unilateral Amblyopia.

PURPOSE: Many clinicians treat unilateral amblyopia with glasses alone and initiate patching when needed; others start glasses and patching simultaneously. In this study, we reviewed the outcomes of the two approaches at our institution. DESIGN: Retrospective nonrandomized clinical trial. METHODS: Setting: Institutional practice. PATIENT POPULATION: All patients diagnosed with amblyopia at Boston Children's Hospital between 2010 and 2014. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Unilateral amblyopia (visual acuity (VA) 20/40 to 20/200 with interocular difference ≥3 lines,) age 3 to 12 years, with a 6-month follow-up visit. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Deprivation amblyopia, prior amblyopia treatment, treatment other than patching, surgery. Patients were categorized as "simultaneous treatment" (concurrent glasses and patching therapy at their first visit) or "sequential treatment" (glasses alone at first visit, followed by patching therapy at second visit.) Observation procedures: Patient demographics, VA, and stereopsis were compared. OUTCOME MEASURES: VA and stereopsis at the last visit on treatment. RESULTS: We identified 98 patients who met inclusion criteria: 36 received simultaneous treatment and 62 sequential treatment. Median amblyopic eye VA improved similarly between the simultaneous (∆0.40; interquartile range [IQR], 0.56-0.30 logMAR) and sequential (∆0.40; IQR, 0.52-0.27 logMAR) groups. Patients without stereopsis at first visit had better stereopsis outcomes with sequential treatment (5.12 [IQR, 4.00-7.51] log stereopsis) compared with simultaneous treatment (8.01 [IQR, 5.65-9.21]) log stereopsis, P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: VA improved approximately 4 lines regardless of treatment type. For children without stereopsis at first presentation, sequential patching yielded better stereopsis outcomes. These findings require further validation and highlight the importance of evaluating stereopsis in future studies.

Virtual reality prototype for binocular therapy in older children and adults with amblyopia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the best-corrected visual acuity and stereoacuity gains in children >7 years of age and adults with unilateral amblyopia treated with a prototype virtual reality-based binocular amblyopia therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, double masked, cross-in clinical trial, patients at Boston Children's Hospital with unilateral anisometropic and/or strabismic amblyopia and history of prior amblyopia treatment failure were randomized to either a full-treatment group (8 weeks of binocular treatment using therapeutic software application in virtual reality headset) or a sham-crossover group (4 weeks of sham treatment followed by 4 weeks of binocular treatment). Amblyopic eye visual acuity and stereoacuity were evaluated at 4, 8, and 16 weeks' follow-up. RESULTS: The study cohort included 20 participants (10 females), with a median age of 9 years (range, 7-38 years). In the full-treatment group (11 patients), the mean amblyopic eye logMAR visual acuity at 16 weeks was 0.49 ± 0.26, compared with 0.47 ± 0.20 at baseline. In the sham-crossover group, it was 0.51 ± 0.18 at 16 weeks, compared with 0.53 ± 0.21 at baseline. Stereoacuity (log arcsec) was significantly improved, from 7.3 ± 2 at baseline to 6.6 ± 2.3 at 8 weeks (P < 0.001) and 6.7 ± 2.6 at 16 weeks (P < 0.001). No significant adverse events (diplopia, asthenopia, or worsening strabismus) were noted in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the virtual reality-based prototype for binocular amblyopia therapy did not significantly improve visual acuity in the amblyopic eyes of older children and adults, stereoacuity did significantly improve compared with baseline; improvements were clinically minute. However, larger studies are required to confirm the results.

Identifying Characteristics Predictive of Lost-to-Follow-Up Status in Amblyopia.

PURPOSE: To identify demographic and disease-related characteristics predictive of Lost-to-Follow-Up (LTFU) status in amblyopia treatment and create a risk model for predicting LTFU status. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study METHODS: Setting: Single-center, ophthalmology department at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH). PATIENTS: 2037 patients treated for amblyopia at BCH between 2010 and 2014. OBSERVATION PROCEDURE: LTFU was defined as patients who did not return after initial visit, excluding those who came for second opinion. Multiple variables were tested for association with LTFU status. OUTCOME MEASURE: Odds ratio of LTFU risk associated with each variable. Multivariate logistic regression was used to create a risk score for predicting LTFU status. RESULTS: A large proportion of patients (23%) were LTFU after first visit. Older age, nonwhite race, lack of insurance, previous glasses or atropine treatment, and longer requested follow-up intervals were independent predictors of LTFU status. A multivariable risk score was created to predict probability of LTFU (area under the curve 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive amblyopia database allows us to predict which patients are more likely to be LTFU after baseline visit and develop strategies to mitigate these effects. These findings may help with practice efficiency and improve patient outcomes in the future by transitioning these analyses to an electronic medical record that could be programmed to provide continually updated decision support for individual patients based on large data sets.

Effect of Primary Occlusion Therapy in Asymmetric, Bilateral Amblyopia.

PURPOSE: Many bilateral amblyopia patients have asymmetric visual acuity (VA). There is no standard treatment for these patients, and outcomes have not been well described. Our goal is to compare VA outcomes in this group based on timing of occlusion therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective interventional comparative case series. METHODS: Setting: Institutional practice. PatientPopulation: Patients diagnosed with amblyopia at Boston Children's Hospital between 2010 and 2014. InclusionCriteria: VA ≥ 0.3 logMAR bilaterally by objective optotype-based measures, interocular difference (IOD) ≥ 0.18 logMAR, age 2-12 years. ExclusionCriteria: Loss to follow-up, managed surgically, deprivation amblyopia. Patients had either primary or secondary occlusion (primary = initiated when VA ≥ 0.3 logMAR bilaterally; secondary = initiated to correct residual IOD once VA improved to ≤0.18 logMAR in the stronger eye). ObservationProcedure: Patient demographics, VA, IOD, and stereopsis were compared between groups. OutcomeMeasures: VA improvement at 12-18 months and at last visits. RESULTS: Of 2,200 patients reviewed, 167 (7.6%) had asymmetric, bilateral amblyopia; 98 met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were equally divided between primary (n = 50) and secondary (n = 48) occlusion groups. There were no differences in demographics, baseline VA, or IOD between groups (P ≥ .22), although the primary occlusion group had a higher proportion of strabismic amblyopia (P = .007). VA in both eyes, IOD, and stereopsis improved similarly between groups, even after stratifying by amblyopia subtype (P ≥ .48). The secondary occlusion group was more likely to achieve 20/30 bilaterally and IOD ≤ 1 line at 12-18 months (P ≤ .4), although this equalized by the last visit. CONCLUSION: In patients with asymmetric, bilateral amblyopia, VA improved by 4 lines in the weaker eye and 2 lines in the stronger eye, while IOD improved by 2 lines, irrespective of occlusion status. Primary occlusion thus provided no further benefit over spectacle correction alone.