Accuracy of Autorefraction in Children: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the accuracy of autorefraction compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy in children. METHODS: Literature searches were last conducted in October 2019 in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases for studies published in English. The combined searches yielded 118 citations, of which 53 were reviewed in full text. Of these, 31 articles were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this assessment and subsequently assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologists. Four articles were rated level I, 11 were rated level II, and 16 were rated level III articles. The 16 level III articles were excluded from this review. RESULTS: Thirteen of the 15 studies comparing cycloplegic autorefraction with cycloplegic retinoscopy found a mean difference in spherical equivalent or sphere of less than 0.5 diopters (D); most were less than 0.25 D. Even lower mean differences were found when evaluating the cylindrical component of cycloplegic autorefraction versus cycloplegic retinoscopy. Despite low mean variability, there was significant individual measurement variability; the 95% limits of agreement were wide and included clinically relevant differences. Comparisons of noncycloplegic with cycloplegic autorefractions found that noncyloplegic refraction tends to over minus by 1 to 2 D. CONCLUSIONS: Cycloplegic autorefraction is appropriate to use in pediatric population-based studies. Cycloplegic retinoscopy can be valuable in individual clinical cases to confirm the accuracy of cycloplegic autorefraction, particularly when corrected visual acuity is worse than expected or the autorefraction results are not consistent with expected findings.

Use of Orthokeratology for the Prevention of Myopic Progression in Children: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To review the published evidence to evaluate the ability of orthokeratology (Ortho-K) treatment to reduce myopic progression in children and adolescents compared with the use of spectacles or daytime contact lenses for standard refractive correction. METHODS: Literature searches of the PubMed database, the Cochrane Library, and the databases of clinical trials were last conducted on August 21, 2018, with no date restrictions but limited to articles published in English. These searches yielded 162 citations, of which 13 were deemed clinically relevant for full-text review and inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologist then assigned a level of evidence rating to the selected studies. RESULTS: The 13 articles selected for inclusion include 3 prospective, randomized clinical trials; 7 nonrandomized, prospective comparative studies; and 3 retrospective case series. One study provided level I evidence, 11 studies provided level II evidence, and 1 study provided level III evidence. Most studies were performed in populations of Asian ethnicity. Change in axial length was the primary outcome for 10 of 13 studies and change in refraction was the primary outcome for 3 of 13 studies. In these studies, Ortho-K typically reduced axial elongation by approximately 50% over a 2-year study period. This corresponds to average axial length change values of approximately 0.3 mm for Ortho-K patients compared with 0.6 mm for control patients, which corresponds to a typical difference in refraction of approximately 0.5 diopters (D). Younger age groups and individuals with larger than average pupil size may have a greater effect with Ortho-K. Rebound can occur after discontinuation or change to alternative refractive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Orthokeratology may be effective in slowing myopic progression for children and adolescents, with a potentially greater effect when initiated at an early age (6-8 years). Safety remains a concern because of the risk of potentially blinding microbial keratitis from contact lens wear.

The Use of ß-Blockers for the Treatment of Periocular Hemangiomas in Infants: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To review the published literature assessing the efficacy of ß-blockers for the treatment of periocular hemangioma in infants. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in May 2018 in PubMed with no date restrictions and limited to studies published in English and in the Cochrane Library database without any restrictions. The combined searches yielded 437 citations. Of these,16 articles were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this assessment and assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist. RESULTS: None of the 16 studies included in this assessment were rated level I, 3 were rated level II, and 13 were rated level III. The most common treatment regimen was 2 mg/kg daily oral propranolol, but intralesional and topical ß-blockers were also used. Treatment effect was most often measured in terms of reduction in the size of the lesions, which occurred in the majority of patients. ß-Blockers were consistently shown to reduce astigmatism, but this reduction was shown to be statistically significant in only 2 series. The effect of ß-blockers on amblyopia was not adequately documented. ß-Blockers were generally well tolerated and had mild side effects (fatigue, gastrointestinal upset/diarrhea, restlessness/sleep disturbances, minor wheezing, and cold extremities). Complications severe enough to require cessation of treatment occurred in only 2 patients out of a total of 229 who received ß-blockers. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the safety and efficacy of both topical and systemic ß-blockers to promote regression of periocular hemangiomas. Additional research may confirm the best dosage and route of administration to maximize efficacy in reducing induced astigmatism and amblyopia associated with periocular hemangiomas while minimizing side effects.

Atropine for the Prevention of Myopia Progression in Children: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To review the published literature on the efficacy of topical atropine for the prevention of myopic progression in children. METHODS: Literature searches were last conducted in December 2016 in the PubMed database with no date restrictions, but were limited to studies published in English, and in the Cochrane Library database without any restrictions. The combined searches yielded 98 citations, 23 of which were reviewed in full text. Of these, 17 articles were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this assessment and subsequently were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist. RESULTS: Seventeen level I, II, and III studies were identified. Most of the studies reported less myopic progression in children treated with atropine compared with various control groups. All 8 of the level I and II studies that evaluated primarily myopic progression revealed less myopic progression with atropine (myopic progression ranging from 0.04±0.63 to 0.47±0.91 diopters (D)/year) compared with control participants (myopic progression ranging from 0.38±0.39 to 1.19±2.48 D/year). In studies that evaluated myopic progression after cessation of treatment, a rebound effect was noted. Several studies evaluated the optimal dosage of atropine with regard to myopic progression, rebound after treatment cessation, and minimization of side effects. Lower dosages of atropine (0.5%, 0.1%, and 0.01%) were found to be slightly less effective during treatment periods of 1 to 2 years, but they were associated with less rebound myopic progression (for atropine 0.01%, mean myopic progression after treatment cessation of 0.28±0.33 D/year, compared with atropine 0.5%, 0.87±0.52 D/year), fewer side effects, and similar long-term results for myopic progression after the study period and rebound effect were considered. The most robust and well-designed studies were carried out in Asian populations. Studies involving patients of other ethnic backgrounds failed to provide sufficient evidence of an effect of atropine on myopic progression. CONCLUSIONS: Level I evidence supports the use of atropine to prevent myopic progression. Although there are reports of myopic rebound after treatment is discontinued, this seems to be minimized by using low doses (especially atropine 0.01%).

Clinical Models and Algorithms for the Prediction of Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy with which available retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) predictive models detect clinically significant ROP and to what extent and at what risk these models allow for the reduction of screening examinations for ROP. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was conducted last on May 1, 2015, and yielded 305 citations. After screening the abstracts of all 305 citations and reviewing the full text of 30 potentially eligible articles, the panel members determined that 22 met the inclusion criteria. One article included 2 studies, for a total of 23 studies reviewed. The panel extracted information about study design, study population, the screening algorithm tested, interventions, outcomes, and study quality. The methodologist divided the studies into 2 categories-model development and model validation-and assigned a level of evidence rating to each study. One study was rated level I evidence, 3 studies were rated level II evidence, and 19 studies were rated level III evidence. RESULTS: In some cohorts, some models would have allowed reductions in the number of infants screened for ROP without failing to identify infants requiring treatment. However, the small sample size and limited generalizability of the ROP predictive models included in this review preclude their widespread use to make all-or-none decisions about whether to screen individual infants for ROP. As an alternative, some studies proposed approaches to apply the models to reduce the number of examinations performed in low-risk infants. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to optimize ROP predictive model development, validation, and application before such models can be used widely to reduce the burdensome number of ROP screening examinations.