Providing multimedia information to children and young people increases recruitment to trials: pre-planned meta-analysis of SWATs.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials are often beset by problems with poor recruitment and retention. Information to support decisions on trial participation is usually provided as printed participant information sheets (PIS), which are often long, technical, and unappealing. Multimedia information (MMI), including animations and videos, may be a valuable alternative or complement to a PIS. The Trials Engagement in Children and Adolescents (TRECA) study compared MMI to PIS to investigate the effects on participant recruitment, retention, and quality of decision-making. METHODS: We undertook six SWATs (Study Within A Trial) within a series of host trials recruiting children and young people. Potential participants in the host trials were randomly allocated to receive MMI-only, PIS-only, or combined MMI + PIS. We recorded the rates of recruitment and retention (varying between 6 and 26 weeks post-randomisation) in each host trial. Potential participants approached about each host trial were asked to complete a nine-item Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) to indicate their evaluation of the information and their reasons for participation/non-participation. Odds ratios were calculated and combined in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data from 3/6 SWATs for which it was possible were combined in a meta-analysis (n = 1758). Potential participants allocated to MMI-only were more likely to be recruited to the host trial than those allocated to PIS-only (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.05, 2.28; p = 0.03). Those allocated to combined MMI + PIS compared to PIS-only were no more likely to be recruited to the host trial (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.53, 1.50; p = 0.67). Providing MMI rather than PIS did not impact on DMQ scores. Once children and young people had been recruited to host trials, their trial retention rates did not differ according to intervention allocation. CONCLUSIONS: Providing MMI-only increased the trial recruitment rate compared to PIS-only but did not affect DMQ scores. Combined MMI + PIS instead of PIS had no effect on recruitment or retention. MMIs are a useful tool for trial recruitment in children and young people, and they could reduce trial recruitment periods.

Phase 2a randomised controlled feasibility trial of a new 'balanced binocular viewing' treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children age 3-8 years: trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Treatments for amblyopia, the most common vision deficit in children, often have suboptimal results. Occlusion/atropine blurring are fraught with poor adherence, regression and recurrence. These interventions target only the amblyopic eye, failing to address imbalances of cortical input from the two eyes ('suppression'). Dichoptic treatments manipulate binocular visual experience to rebalance input. Poor adherence in early trials of dichoptic therapies inspired our development of balanced binocular viewing (BBV), using movies as child-friendly viewable content. Small observational studies indicate good adherence and efficacy. A feasibility trial is needed to further test safety and gather information to design a full trial. METHODS/ANALYSIS: We will carry out an observer-masked parallel-group phase 2a feasibility randomised controlled trial at two sites, randomising 44 children aged 3-8 years with unilateral amblyopia to either BBV or standard occlusion/atropine blurring, with 1:1 allocation ratio. We will assess visual function at baseline, 8 and 16 weeks. The primary outcome is intervention safety at 16 weeks, measured as change in interocular suppression, considered to precede the onset of potential diplopia. Secondary outcomes include safety at other time points, eligibility, recruitment/retention rates, adherence, clinical outcomes. We will summarise baseline characteristics for each group and assess the treatment effect using analysis of covariance. We will compare continuous clinical secondary endpoints between arms using linear mixed effect models, and report feasibility endpoints using descriptive statistics. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the London-Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/1204), National Health Service Health Research Authority and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. A lay advisory group will be involved with advising on and disseminating the results to non-professional audiences, including on websites of funder/participating institutions and inputting on healthcare professional audience children would like us to reach. Reporting to clinicians and scientists will be via internal and external meetings/conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03754153.

Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for amblyopia, typically patching or pharmacological blurring, have limited success. Less than two-thirds of children achieve good acuity of 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor adherence to treatment. A new approach, based on presentation of movies or computer games separately to each eye, may yield better results and improve adherence. These treatments aim to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain.  OBJECTIVES: To determine whether binocular treatments in children, aged three to eight years, with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional patching or pharmacological blurring treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to 19 November 2020, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search for relevant studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia. Amblyopia was classed as present when the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor, such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. To be eligible, children needed to have undergone cycloplegic refraction and  ophthalmic examination, including fundal examination and optical treatment, if indicated, with stable BCVA in the amblyopic eye despite good adherence with wearing glasses. We included any type of binocular viewing intervention, on any device (e.g. computer monitors viewed with liquid-crystal display shutter glasses; hand-held screens, including mobile phones with lenticular prism overlay; or virtual reality displays). Control groups received standard amblyopia treatment, which could include patching or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We included full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) patching regimens. We excluded children who had received any treatment other than optical treatment; and studies with less than 8-week follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome of the review was the change from baseline of distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye after 16 (± 2) weeks of treatment, measured in logMAR units on an age-appropriate acuity test. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one eligible RCT of conventional patching treatment versus novel binocular treatment, and analysed a subset of 68 children who fulfilled the age criterion of this review. We obtained data for the mean change in amblyopic eye visual acuity, adverse events (diplopia), and adherence to prescribed treatment at 8- and 16-week follow-up intervals, though no data were available for change in BCVA after 52 weeks. Risk of bias for the included study was considered to be low. The certainty of evidence for the visual acuity outcomes at 8 and 16 weeks of treatment and adherence to the study intervention was rated moderate using the GRADE criteria, downgrading by one level due to imprecision. The certainty of evidence was downgraded by two levels and rated low for the proportion of participants reporting adverse events due to the sample size.  Acuity improved in the amblyopic eye in both the binocular and patching groups following 16 weeks of treatment (improvement of -0.21 logMAR in the binocular group and -0.24 logMAR in the patching group, mean difference (MD) 0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.04; 63 children). This difference was non-significant and the improvements in both the binocular and patching groups are also considered clinically similar. Following 8 weeks of treatment, acuity improved in both the binocular and patching groups (improvement of -0.18 logMAR in the patching group compared to -0.16 logMAR improvement in the binocular-treatment group) (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08). Again this difference was statistically non-significant, and the differences observed between the patching and binocular groups are also clinically non-significant. No adverse event of permanent diplopia was reported. Adherence was higher in the patching group (47% of participants in the iPad group achieved over 75% compliance compared with 90% of the patching group).  Data were not available for changes in stereopsis nor for contrast sensitivity following treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is only one RCT that offers evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatment. The authors are moderately confident that after 16 weeks of treatment, the gain in amblyopic eye acuity with binocular treatment is likely comparable to that of conventional patching treatment. However, due to the limited sample size and lack of long term (52 week) follow-up data, it is not yet possible to draw robust conclusions regarding the overall safety and sustained effectiveness of binocular treatment. Further research, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility, is required to inform decisions about the implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice, and should incorporate longer term follow-up to establish the effectiveness of binocular treatment. Randomised controlled trials should also include outcomes reported by users, adherence to prescribed treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.

Preliminary clinical validation of a new picture-based visual acuity test in children with amblyopia: a comparison of The Auckland Optotypes and crowded logMAR letters.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Amblyopia is the most common visual deficit in children and accurate visual acuity (VA) assessment is essential for diagnosis. While ETDRS high-contrast logMAR VA is the reference standard test for adults, less agreement exists for pre-literate children. A new picture optotype acuity test (The Auckland Optotypes [TAO]) has shown favourable comparison to letter acuity charts but has not yet been evaluated in children with amblyopia. This study aimed to compare VA obtained using TAO to crowded logMAR letters in children age 5-8 years with amblyopia. METHODS: Children with amblyopia (n = 54 [20.37% strabismic, 18.52% anisometropic, 61.11% mixed], mean age 78.30 ± 11.72 months) were recruited from paediatric ophthalmology/orthoptic clinics at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, and Cambridge Community Services NHS Trust, Bedford. Best-corrected VA was measured in both the amblyopic eye (AE) and fellow eye (FE) using TAO and a crowded letter acuity chart. Bland-Altman analysis was used to measure 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for VA measures captured (AE, FE and interocular difference [IOD]). RESULTS: Good agreement between TAO and letter VA measurement was observed (mean bias: AE -0.01, FE 0.01, IOD -0.02). For AE measures 95% LoA were from -0.25 to 0.24 logMAR, this being similar for FE (-0.24 to 0.25) and IOD measures (-0.30 to 0.27). CONCLUSION: TAO and letters elicited similar VA in children with amblyopia. TAO could be a useful picture-based chart for paediatric vision assessment.