The Preventive Role of Atropine Eye Drops on Myopia Progression: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: In the present study, we investigated the effect of two doses of atropine eye drops versus placebo on myopia progression in children and adolescents. Methods: In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 67 patients aged 6 to 18 years with myopia of -2 to -6 D were enrolled and randomized to receive a placebo eye drop, atropine 0.1%, or 0.01% ophthalmic solution (one drop per night for 6 months). All participants were followed-up with for one year after the beginning of the study (at zero, one, three, six, and 12 months) and their spherical equivalent (SE), axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and far and near visual acuity (VA) and the eye drops side effects were recorded. A comparison among the groups was performed using SPSS software, version 24.0. Results: Spherical equivalent, AL, and ACD decreased and far VA improved in atropine groups to a greater extent than the placebo group (P < .05) at the 6-month follow-up. The most common side effects of atropine 0.1% eye drop included photophobia and decreased near VA. At the end of the study (six months after the cessation of atropine), a rebound effect was observed; this effect was especially severe in the 0.1% atropine group. Conclusions: Atropine eye drops are effective for slowing down and preventing myopia progression. However, without long-term treatment, they will have a rebound effect. A lower dose (0.01%) is suggested for reducing the side effects and rebound effects.

Intravitreal Injection of Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents for Ocular Vascular Diseases: Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide the clinical recommendations for the administration of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs especially bavacizumab for ocular vascular diseases including diabetic macular edema, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, myopic choroidal neovascularization, retinal vein occlusion and central serous chorioretinopathy. METHODS: Twenty clinical questions were developed by the guideline technical committee. Relevant websites and databases were searched to find out the pertinent clinical practice guidelines to answer the questions. The technical committee provided possible answers (scenarios) according to the available evidences for each question. All scenarios along with their levels of evidence and the supported articles were sent to the experts for external review. If the experts did not agree on any of the scenarios for one particular clinical question, the technical committee reviewed all scenarios and their pertinent evidences and made the necessary decision. After that, the experts were asked to score them again. All confirmed scenarios were gathered as the final recommendations. RESULTS: All the experts agreed on at least one of the scenarios. The technical committee extracted the agreed scenario for each clinical question as the final recommendation. Finally, 56 recommendations were developed for the procedure of intravitreal anti-VEGF injection and their applications in the management of ocular vascular diseases. CONCLUSION: The implementation of this guideline can standardize the management of the common ocular vascular diseases by intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents. It can lead to better policy-making and evidence-based clinical decision by ophthalmologists and optimal evidence based eye care for patients.

Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Practice Guidelines: Customized for Iranian Population.

PURPOSE: To customize clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the Iranian population. METHODS: Three DR CPGs (The Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2013, American Academy of Ophthalmology [Preferred Practice Pattern 2012], and Australian Diabetes Society 2008) were selected from the literature using the AGREE tool. Clinical questions were designed and summarized into four tables by the customization team. The components of the clinical questions along with pertinent recommendations extracted from the above-mentioned CPGs; details of the supporting articles and their levels of evidence; clinical recommendations considering clinical benefits, cost and side effects; and revised recommendations based on customization capability (applicability, acceptability, external validity) were recorded in 4 tables, respectively. Customized recommendations were sent to the faculty members of all universities across the country to score the recommendations from 1 to 9. RESULTS: Agreed recommendations were accepted as the final recommendations while the non-agreed ones were approved after revision. Eventually, 29 customized recommendations under three major categories consisting of screening, diagnosis and treatment of DR were developed along with their sources and levels of evidence. CONCLUSION: This customized CPGs for management of DR can be used to standardize the referral pathway, diagnosis and treatment of patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Anatomic and visual outcomes of scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment: six-month follow-up results of a single operation--report no. 1.

PURPOSE: To compare the anatomic and visual results and complications of conventional scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy for management of pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-five eyes of 225 patients with pseudophakic or aphakic retinal detachment. INTERVENTION: Eligible eyes were assigned randomly either to conventional scleral buckling or primary vitrectomy without any buckle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual results, retinal reattachment rate, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, macular pucker, cystoid macular edema, choroidal detachment, intraocular pressure, extraocular muscle dysfunction, and anisometropia. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the single-operation retinal reattachment rate at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month follow-up examinations. Patients in the buckle group had 28% greater likelihood of anatomic success compared with those in the vitrectomy group (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-2.24), indicating no statistically significant difference. Proliferative vitreoretinopathy was the main cause of anatomic failure in both groups and occurred independent of the surgical technique used. Best-corrected visual acuity at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month postoperative follow-up examinations showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Six months after surgery, 12.8% of eyes in the buckle group and 11.3% of eyes in the vitrectomy group achieved visual acuity of 20/40 or better. The difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. Corresponding figures were 66.3% and 64.5% for visual acuity of 20/200 or better in the buckle and vitrectomy groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant difference. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Scleral buckling and primary vitrectomy without an encircling band have comparable results in pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment. The choice of surgical technique depends on various factors, including patient compliance, cost of surgery, experience and capability of surgeons, and availability of appropriate instrumentation.