A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of Base-in Relieving Prism Spectacle Treatment of Intermittent Exotropia.

SIGNIFICANCE: This pilot randomized trial, the first to evaluate a specific base-in relieving prism treatment strategy for childhood intermittent exotropia, did not support proceeding to a full-scale clinical trial. Defining and measuring prism adaptation in children with intermittent exotropia are challenging and need further study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether to proceed to a full-scale trial of relieving base-in prism spectacles versus refractive correction alone for children with intermittent exotropia. METHODS: Children 3 years old to those younger than 13 years with distance intermittent exotropia control score of ≥2 points on the Intermittent Exotropia Office Control Scale (Strabismus 2006;14:147-150; 0 [phoria] to 5 [constant]), ≥1 episode of spontaneous exotropia, and 16 to 35∆ by prism-and-alternate-cover test, who did not fully prism adapt on a 30-minute in-office prism-adaptation test were randomized to base-in relieving prism (40% of the larger of distance and near exodeviations) or nonprism spectacles for 8 weeks. A priori criteria to conduct a full-scale trial were defined for the adjusted treatment group difference in mean distance control: "proceed" (≥0.75 points favoring prism), "uncertain" (>0 to <0.75 points favoring prism), or "do not proceed" (≥0 points favoring nonprism). RESULTS: Fifty-seven children (mean age, 6.6 ± 2.2 years; mean baseline distance control, 3.5 points) received prism (n = 28) or nonprism (n = 29) spectacles. At 8 weeks, mean control values were 3.6 and 3.3 points in prism (n = 25) and nonprism (n = 25) groups, respectively, with an adjusted difference of 0.3 points (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.1 points) favoring nonprism (meeting our a priori "do not proceed" criterion). CONCLUSIONS: Base-in prism spectacles, equal to 40% of the larger of the exodeviations at distance or near, worn for 8 weeks by 3- to 12-year-old children with intermittent exotropia did not yield better distance control than refractive correction alone, with the confidence interval indicating that a favorable effect of 0.75 points or larger is unlikely. There was insufficient evidence to warrant a full-scale randomized trial.

Low-Dose 0.01% Atropine Eye Drops vs Placebo for Myopia Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Controlling myopia progression is of interest worldwide. Low-dose atropine eye drops have slowed progression in children in East Asia. Objective: To compare atropine, 0.01%, eye drops with placebo for slowing myopia progression in US children. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized placebo-controlled, double-masked, clinical trial conducted from June 2018 to September 2022. Children aged 5 to 12 years were recruited from 12 community- and institution-based practices in the US. Participating children had low to moderate bilateral myopia (-1.00 diopters [D] to -6.00 D spherical equivalent refractive error [SER]). Intervention: Eligible children were randomly assigned 2:1 to 1 eye drop of atropine, 0.01%, nightly or 1 drop of placebo. Treatment was for 24 months followed by 6 months of observation. Main Outcome and Measures: Automated cycloplegic refraction was performed by masked examiners. The primary outcome was change in SER (mean of both eyes) from baseline to 24 months (receiving treatment); other outcomes included change in SER from baseline to 30 months (not receiving treatment) and change in axial length at both time points. Differences were calculated as atropine minus placebo. Results: A total of 187 children (mean [SD] age, 10.1 [1.8] years; age range, 5.1-12.9 years; 101 female [54%]; 34 Black [18%], 20 East Asian [11%], 30 Hispanic or Latino [16%], 11 multiracial [6%], 6 West/South Asian [3%], 86 White [46%]) were included in the study. A total of 125 children (67%) received atropine, 0.01%, and 62 children (33%) received placebo. Follow-up was completed at 24 months by 119 of 125 children (95%) in the atropine group and 58 of 62 children (94%) in the placebo group. At 30 months, follow-up was completed by 118 of 125 children (94%) in the atropine group and 57 of 62 children (92%) in the placebo group. At the 24-month primary outcome visit, the adjusted mean (95% CI) change in SER from baseline was -0.82 (-0.96 to -0.68) D and -0.80 (-0.98 to -0.62) D in the atropine and placebo groups, respectively (adjusted difference = -0.02 D; 95% CI, -0.19 to +0.15 D; P = .83). At 30 months (6 months not receiving treatment), the adjusted difference in mean SER change from baseline was -0.04 D (95% CI, -0.25 to +0.17 D). Adjusted mean (95% CI) changes in axial length from baseline to 24 months were 0.44 (0.39-0.50) mm and 0.45 (0.37-0.52) mm in the atropine and placebo groups, respectively (adjusted difference = -0.002 mm; 95% CI, -0.106 to 0.102 mm). Adjusted difference in mean axial elongation from baseline to 30 months was +0.009 mm (95% CI, -0.115 to 0.134 mm). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of school-aged children in the US with low to moderate myopia, atropine, 0.01%, eye drops administered nightly when compared with placebo did not slow myopia progression or axial elongation. These results do not support use of atropine, 0.01%, eye drops to slow myopia progression or axial elongation in US children. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334253.

Validation of Home Visual Acuity Tests for Telehealth in the COVID-19 Era.

Importance: Visual acuity (VA) is one of the most important clinical data points in ophthalmology. However, few options for validated at-home VA assessments are currently available. Objective: To validate 3 at-home visual acuity tests in comparison with in-office visual acuity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between July 2020 and April 2021, eligible participants with VA of 20/200 or better were recruited from 4 university-based ophthalmology clinics (comprehensive, cornea, glaucoma, and retina clinics). Participants were prospectively randomized to self-administer 2 of 3 at-home VA tests (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) within 3 days before their standard-of-care clinic visit. Participants completed a survey assessing usability of the at-home tests. At the clinic visit, best-corrected Snellen distance acuity was measured as the reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: The at-home VA test results were compared with the in-office VA test results using paired and unpaired t tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, χ2 tests, and Cohen κ agreement. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each at-home test were calculated to detect significant VA changes (≥0.2 logMAR) from the in-office baseline. Results: A total of 121 participants with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (13.0) years completed the study. The mean in-office VA was 0.11 logMAR (Snellen equivalent 20/25) with similar numbers of participants from the 4 clinics. Mean difference (logMAR) between the at-home test and in-office acuity was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04) for the printed chart, -0.12 (95% CI, -0.15 to -0.09) for the mobile phone app, and -0.13 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.10) for the website test. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the printed chart was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.79), mobile phone app was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46-0.69), and website test was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53-0.73). Conclusions and Relevance: The 3 at-home VA test results (printed chart, mobile phone app, and website) appeared comparable within 1 line to in-office VA measurements. Older participants were more likely to have limited access to digital tools. Further development and validation of at-home VA testing modalities is needed with the expansion of teleophthalmology care.

Pediatric Ophthalmology Provider and Staff Attitudes and Patient Satisfaction in Telehealth Implementation During COVID-19.

Purpose:Describe a comprehensive overview of a telehealth implementation process that highlights attitudes and satisfaction scores toward telehealth from patients, providers, and staff in an academic pediatric ophthalmology practice during the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Methods:The electronic medical record data for telehealth and in-person visits, as well as a patient experience survey in pediatric ophthalmology were retrospectively reviewed for March 1 to July 31, 2020 and March 1 to July 31, 2019. Patient experience survey results were retrospectively reviewed. All current providers and staff were invited to participate in an anonymous and voluntary survey focused on attitudes at the time of telehealth implementation.Results:During March 1 to July 31, 2020, there was significant increase in telehealth visits (n = 1,006) compared with the same period in 2019 (n = 22). Evaluation and management (E & M) codes (n = 527) were the most commonly used billing codes, and strabismus, nystagmus, and irregular eye movement (n = 496) were the most common telehealth primary diagnoses. The telehealth attitudes survey showed more positive responses from providers than staff. The patient experience survey showed more favorable scores for telehealth visits compared with clinic visits. However, only about 50% of the respondents were satisfied with the technology in terms of ease and quality of connection during their telehealth visits.Conclusions:Telehealth was a satisfactory alternative to clinic visits in our academic pediatric ophthalmology practice during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers and staff had largely positive attitudes toward telehealth; however, future efforts should include strategies to increase staff buy in. Patients had high satisfaction scores with telehealth visits despite connection challenges.

Testing depth of suppression in childhood intermittent exotropia.

A test of suppression was developed to provide a standardized approach to detecting and grading density of suppression in children with intermittent exotropia when manifestly exotropic. This new Office Suppression Test is a three-step procedure to grade suppression on a 4-point scale (from 0 for "negligible suppression" to 3 for "dense suppression"). The test was performed in 57 children 3-13 years of age with intermittent exotropia (distance angle of 16Δ-35Δ, with spontaneous tropia) during enrollment in a randomized trial. Of the 57 children, 51 could complete testing: 28 (55%) had dense suppression, 12 (24%) had moderate suppression, 5 (10%) had mild suppression, and 6 (12%) had negligible suppression. In a subgroup of 20 untreated children, suppression was evaluated again at 8 weeks. There was moderate agreement between suppression scores at baseline and at 8 weeks (weighted κ = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84]).

A Randomized Trial of Binocular Dig Rush Game Treatment for Amblyopia in Children Aged 7 to 12 Years.

PURPOSE: To compare visual acuity (VA) improvement in children aged 7 to 12 years with amblyopia treated with a binocular iPad game plus continued spectacle correction vs. continued spectacle correction alone. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-eight participants aged 7 to 12 years with amblyopia (33-72 letters, i.e., approximately 20/200 to 20/40) resulting from strabismus, anisometropia, or both. Participants were required to have at least 16 weeks of optical treatment in spectacles if needed or demonstrate no improvement in amblyopic-eye visual acuity (VA) for at least 8 weeks prior to enrollment. METHODS: Eligible participants (mean age 9.6 years, mean baseline VA of 59.6 letters, history of prior amblyopia treatment other than spectacles in 96%) were randomly assigned to treatment for 8 weeks with the dichoptic binocular Dig Rush iPad game (prescribed for 1 hour per day 5 days per week) plus spectacle wear if needed (n = 69) or continued spectacle correction alone if needed (n = 69). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 4 weeks, assessed by a masked examiner. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, mean amblyopic-eye VA letter score improved from baseline by 1.3 (2-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-2.6; 0.026 logMAR) with binocular treatment and by 1.7 (2-sided 95% CI: 0.4-3.0; 0.034 logMAR) with continued spectacle correction alone. After adjusment for baseline VA, the letter score difference between groups (binocular minus control) was -0.3 (95% CI: -2.2 to 1.5, P = 0.71, difference of -0.006 logMAR). No difference in letter scores was observed between groups when the analysis was repeated after 8 weeks of treatment (adjusted mean: -0.1, 98.3% CI: -2.4 to 2.1). For the binocular group, adherence data from the iPad indicated that slightly more than half of the participants (58% and 56%) completed >75% of prescribed treatment by the 4- and 8-week visits, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In children aged 7 to 12 years who have received previous treatment for amblyopia other than spectacles, there was no benefit to VA or stereoacuity from 4 or 8 weeks of treatment with the dichoptic binocular Dig Rush iPad game.

Effect of a Binocular iPad Game vs Part-time Patching in Children Aged 5 to 12 Years With Amblyopia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: A binocular approach to treating anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia has recently been advocated. Initial studies have yielded promising results, suggesting that a larger randomized clinical trial is warranted. OBJECTIVE: To compare visual acuity (VA) improvement in children with amblyopia treated with a binocular iPad game vs part-time patching. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted in community and institutional practices from September 16, 2014, to August 28, 2015. Participants included 385 children aged 5 years to younger than 13 years with amblyopia (20/40 to 20/200, mean 20/63) resulting from strabismus, anisometropia, or both. Participants were randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of a binocular iPad game prescribed for 1 hour a day (190 participants; binocular group) or patching of the fellow eye prescribed for 2 hours a day (195 participants; patching group). Study follow-up visits were scheduled at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks. A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed on participants who completed the 16-week trial. INTERVENTIONS: Binocular iPad game or patching of the fellow eye. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 385 participants, 187 were female (48.6%); mean (SD) age was 8.5 (1.9) years. At 16 weeks, mean amblyopic-eye VA improved 1.05 lines (2-sided 95% CI, 0.85-1.24 lines) in the binocular group and 1.35 lines (2-sided 95% CI, 1.17-1.54 lines) in the patching group, with an adjusted treatment group difference of 0.31 lines favoring patching (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 0.53 lines). This upper limit exceeded the prespecified noninferiority limit of 0.5 lines. Only 39 of the 176 participants (22.2%) randomized to the binocular game and with log file data available performed more than 75% of the prescribed treatment (median, 46%; interquartile range, 20%-72%). In younger participants (aged 5 to <7 years) without prior amblyopia treatment, amblyopic-eye VA improved by a mean (SD) of 2.5 (1.5) lines in the binocular group and 2.8 (0.8) lines in the patching group. Adverse effects (including diplopia) were uncommon and of similar frequency between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In children aged 5 to younger than 13 years, amblyopic-eye VA improved with binocular game play and with patching, particularly in younger children (age 5 to <7 years) without prior amblyopia treatment. Although the primary noninferiority analysis was indeterminate, a post hoc analysis suggested that VA improvement with this particular binocular iPad treatment was not as good as with 2 hours of prescribed daily patching. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02200211.

Atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia: follow-up at 15 years of age of a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Initial treatment for amblyopia of the fellow eye with patching and atropine sulfate eyedrops improves visual acuity. Long-term data on the durability of treatment benefit are needed. OBJECTIVE: To report visual acuity at 15 years of age among patients who were younger than 7 years when enrolled in a treatment trial for moderate amblyopia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a multicenter clinical trial, 419 children with amblyopia (visual acuity, 20/40 to 20/100) were randomly assigned to patching (minimum of 6 h/d) or atropine sulfate eyedrops, 1% (1 drop daily), for 6 months. Treatment after 6 months was at the discretion of the investigator. Two years after enrollment, an unselected subgroup of 188 children were enrolled into long-term follow-up. INTERVENTION: Initial treatment with patching or atropine with subsequent treatment at investigator discretion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Visual acuity at 15 years of age with the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study test in amblyopic and fellow eyes. RESULTS: Mean visual acuity in the amblyopic eye measured in 147 participants at 15 years of age was 0.14 logMAR (approximately 20/25); 59.9% of amblyopic eyes had visual acuity of 20/25 or better and 33.3%, 20/20 or better. Mean interocular acuity difference (IOD) at 15 years of age was 0.21 logMAR (2.1 lines); 48.3% had an IOD of 2 or more lines and 71.4%, 1 or more lines. Treatment (other than spectacles) was prescribed for 9 participants (6.1%) aged 10 to 15 years. Mean IOD was similar at examinations at 10 and 15 years of age (2.0 and 2.1 logMAR lines, respectively; P = .39). Better visual acuity at the 15-year examination was achieved in those who were younger than 5 years at the time of entry into the randomized clinical trial (mean logMAR, 0.09) compared with those aged 5 to 6 years (mean logMAR, 0.18; P < .001). When we compared subgroups based on original treatment with atropine or patching, no significant differences were observed in visual acuity of amblyopic and fellow eyes at 15 years of age (P = .44 and P = .43, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: At 15 years of age, most children treated for moderate amblyopia when younger than 7 years have good visual acuity, although mild residual amblyopia is common. The outcome is similar regardless of initial treatment with atropine or patching. The results indicate that improvement occurring with amblyopia treatment is maintained until at least 15 years of age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000170.