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.

Physician Prescribing and Referral Patterns in Children with Cerebral Visual Impairment.

SIGNIFICANCE: Cerebral visual impairment (CVI) is the leading cause of visual impairment in the developed world. Providing children with CVI with the appropriate treatment ensures the best possible visual outcome and potentially improves quality of life. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine physician prescribing and visual rehabilitation referral patterns in children with CVI. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed on children with CVI examined at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center from January 1, 2008, to March 1, 2018. Significant refractive error warranting correction was determined using the American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Guidelines and the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Vision Screening Committee Guidelines. The CVI Range was used as a surrogate to categorize CVI severity. RESULTS: A total of 194 children were included. Sixty-eight (35%) had refractive error warranting correction and were prescribed glasses (group RC), 99 (51%) did not have refractive error warranting correction and were not prescribed glasses (group NRNC), 20 (10%) had refractive error warranting correction but were not prescribed glasses (group RNC), and 7 (4%) did not have refractive error warranting correction but were prescribed glasses (group NRC). There was greater than one-line Snellen equivalent difference between group RC (20/156) and group RNC (20/221). There was greater than six-line Snellen equivalent difference between group NRNC (20/149) and group NRC (20/35). Mean CVI Range score 2 values for each group were 5.9, 4.6, 4.8, and 7.1. CONCLUSIONS: Children with less severe CVI were less likely to have significant refractive error but given glasses. Despite significant refractive error, children with more severe CVI were not prescribed glasses. Children with very low visual function were not prescribed glasses as frequently, possibly limiting their visual rehabilitation. Providers should ensure that all children with CVI are correctly prescribed glasses to provide the best possible visual outcome.

Cataract development associated with long-term glucocorticoid therapy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the development of cataracts or elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) on long-term glucocorticoid (GC) treatment. METHODS: The medical records of DMD patients evaluated from 2010 to 2015 at a single center were reviewed retrospectively. The main outcome measures were prevalence of cataracts and elevated IOP, age of first detection of cataract, time from initial steroid use to first detection of cataract, and relative risk of cataract development for deflazacort versus prednisone treatment. RESULTS: Of 596 DMD patients, 514 underwent GC therapy; all but one was male. The racial distribution was 82.1% white, 1.0% African American, 5.0% Hispanic, 2.9% Asian, and 8.0% more than one race or "other." The prevalence of cataracts was 22.4% in patients on GC therapy. The mean age at which cataract formation was first documented was 12.9 ± 4.1 years (IQR, 9.6-14.6). The mean time from initial steroid use to the first detection of cataract was 6.5 ± 3.6 years (IQR, 4.0-8.6). The odds of cataract development were 2.4-fold higher for patients on deflazacort compared with prednisone (95% CI, 1.3-4.5; P = 0.004). Only 7 patients (1.4%) underwent cataract surgery, at a mean age of 16.9 years (range, 10.7-24.6 years); all were on deflazacort. Among patients with available intraocular pressure measurements, elevated IOP occurred in only 1 patient (1.1%), who was on deflazacort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing GC therapy for DMD, the rate of cataract formation was slow and well tolerated, with a higher risk among deflazacort patients. The percentage of patients requiring cataract extraction or with elevated IOP was very small. These findings suggest that a schedule of annual eye examinations is appropriate.

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.

Comparison of the amblyopia treatment study HOTV and electronic-early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity protocols in children aged 5 to 12 years.

PURPOSE: To compare two established visual acuity protocols: the Amblyopia Treatment Study HOTV (ATS HOTV) visual acuity protocol and the Electronic-Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS) protocol, in children aged 5 to 12 years. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Crowded HOTV optotypes and crowded ETDRS optotypes were presented to 236 consecutive children aged 5 to 12 years using an electronic visual acuity tester (Palm handheld, personal computer, and monitor). Twenty-three percent of the children were classified as amblyopic, 35% as having uncorrected refractive error, 36% as normal, and 6% as other. Visual acuity test results were converted to logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) units for analysis. RESULTS: In developmentally normal children (n = 230), testability was 100% for HOTV in 5- to 12-year-olds and 100% for E-ETDRS in 7- to 12-year-olds. The E-ETDRS testing could be completed in 52% of 5-year-olds and in 87% of 6-year-olds. Visual acuity performance was better when measured by HOTV compared with E-ETDRS (median difference 0.06 logMAR [three letters on a chart with five letters/line], P =.0001), and the difference was found in normal eyes, eyes with refractive error, and amblyopic eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The ATS HOTV protocol yields slightly better visual acuity performance compared with E-ETDRS in 5- to 12-year-olds, but on average by less than a logMAR level. This systematic difference is important when a physician changes testing modality as a child matures and should be considered when interpreting the results of recent and ongoing clinical trials in amblyopia.

Reliability of the electronic early treatment diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol in children 7 to <13 years old.

PURPOSE: To assess the test-retest reliability of the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (E-ETDRS) visual acuity algorithm using the computerized Electronic Visual Acuity (EVA) tester in children 7 to <13 years old. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study. METHODS: This multicenter study involved 245 subjects at four clinical sites. As the main outcome measure, visual acuity was measured twice using the E-ETDRS testing protocol on the EVA system, which uses a programmed handheld device to communicate with a personal computer and a 17-inch monitor at a 3-m test distance. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was high (r =.94 for right eyes and 0.96 for left eyes) and for both right and left eyes, 89% of retest scores were within 0.1 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) (five letters) of the initial test score and 99% of retests were within 0.2 logMAR (10 letters). Reliability was high across the age range of 7 to <13 years. Based on 95% confidence level estimates, a change in visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR (10 letters) from a previous acuity measure is unlikely to result from measurement variability. CONCLUSIONS: The E-ETDRS protocol using the EVA has high test-retest reliability in children 7 to <13 years of age. Potential advantages include better standardization across multiple sites, the ability to directly capture data electronically with an automatic acuity score calculation, the reduction of potential bias by limiting the tester's role, and the requirement of only a single testing distance for measurements from 20/800 to 20/12. This computerized testing method should be considered when visual acuity is used as an outcome measure in eye research involving children 7 to <13 years old.

Results of ocular dominance testing depend on assessment method.

PURPOSE: We developed a near ocular dominance test modeled after the distance hole-in-the-card test and assessed both test-retest reliability of four tests of ocular dominance and agreement between tests. METHODS: Forty-six subjects aged 18 to 78 years with visual acuity 20/40 or better in each eye were enrolled from a primary care practice. All subjects had normal eye examinations, with the exception of refractive error, and were examined in their habitual correction. Subjects were tested twice each with the distance hole-in-the-card test, new near hole-in-the-card test, near convergence test, and the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group fixation preference test. RESULTS: There was excellent test-retest reliability for each ocular dominance test. Nevertheless, there was only moderate to slight agreement between each possible pairing of tests. CONCLUSIONS: Results of ocular dominance tests vary depending on both the testing distance and the specific activity performed as part of the testing procedure.

An abbreviated reading speed test.

PURPOSE: The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test (MNREAD) has been developed to measure reading speed. An abbreviated version of the MNREAD test was developed that presented only three large paragraphs and would be easier for children to complete. METHODS: Fifty children ages 8 to 18 years, with normal eye examinations or refractive error alone, underwent testing of reading speed using the MNREAD test. All the children read the standard MNREAD paragraphs starting at the 1.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) level until they could no longer read the subsequent paragraph. Each eye was tested separately, using the second MNREAD card for the left eye. The standard MNREAD reading speed was calculated by plotting the speed for each paragraph, determining the critical print size, then taking the median value of all the paragraphs above the cutoff paragraph. The proposed abbreviated test reading speed was calculated from the median of three large paragraphs (logMAR, 1.0, 0.9, and 0.8). At a second site, 25 children with a variety of ocular conditions were similarly tested using an alternative abbreviated test (logMAR, 1.3, 1.2, and 1.1). The standard and abbreviated reading speeds were then compared between tests and between eyes using generalized estimating equation and intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The mean reading method speeds with the standard and abbreviated tests were almost identical [177 words per minute (wpm) +/- 46 wpm vs. 178 +/- 46 wpm, p = 0.43 for normal children and 140 +/- 29 wpm vs. 141 +/- 33 wpm, p = 0.35 in children with a variety of ocular conditions]. CONCLUSION.: The new abbreviated version of the MNREAD reading speed test yields similar results to the standard MNREAD test in children. The new abbreviated MNREAD test is faster to administer and appears to be particularly useful for children.