Osborne Daniel C, Greenhalgh Kathryn M, Evans Megan J E, Self Jay E
Orthoptic Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Orthoptic Department, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
Ophthalmol Ther. 2018 Dec;7(2):323-332. doi: 10.1007/s40123-018-0151-9. Epub 2018 Oct 16.
Amblyopia therapy appears to be most effective in children under the age of 7 years, but results from randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown that occlusion therapy and/or atropine penalization therapy may improve visual acuity in an older age group. Which of these two therapies is the most effective with fewer adverse effects in an older age group has not yet been agreed upon.
We systematically searched the literature for RCTs that compared atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy in terms of their visual acuity outcomes and adverse events and performed a meta-analysis on the visual acuity data obtained. The adverse effects reported and their implications for clinical practice are discussed.
Two RCTs were identified, with the authors of both concluding that there was no detectable difference between the two therapies for the age groups they studied. The mean difference between atropine penalization and occlusion therapies was calculated to be - 0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval - 0.07 to 0.03 logMAR) in favor of occlusion therapy, and no statistical difference between the two groups was detected (P = 0.45). Neither study detected a marked difference in terms of reported adverse effects from the two interventions.
Based on the results of our meta-analysis we conclude that there is no difference in visual acuity outcomes between atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy after 17 to 24 weeks of treatment in children aged 7-12 years. Further evidence to determine the efficacy of amblyopia therapy for an older patient population is required before studies comparing atropine penalization and occlusion therapy in patients older than 12 years can be performed. Atropine penalization therapy may cause more frequent minor adverse effects, such as light sensitivity, but in the clinical setting this needs to be balanced with the potential practical benefits of twice-weekly eye drops versus daily occlusion.
The funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Health Education England (HEE). A plain language summary is available for this article.
弱视治疗似乎在7岁以下儿童中最为有效,但随机对照试验(RCT)的结果表明,遮盖疗法和/或阿托品压抑疗法可能会提高年龄较大组别的视力。在年龄较大的组别中,这两种疗法哪种最有效且副作用更少,目前尚未达成共识。
我们系统地检索了文献,寻找比较阿托品压抑疗法和遮盖疗法在视力结果及不良事件方面的随机对照试验,并对所获得的视力数据进行荟萃分析。讨论了所报告的不良反应及其对临床实践的影响。
确定了两项随机对照试验,两项试验的作者均得出结论,在所研究的年龄组中,两种疗法之间没有可检测到的差异。计算得出阿托品压抑疗法和遮盖疗法之间的平均差值为-0.01 logMAR(95%置信区间为-0.07至0.03 logMAR),支持遮盖疗法,但两组之间未检测到统计学差异(P = 0.45)。两项研究均未发现两种干预措施在报告的不良反应方面有明显差异。
基于我们的荟萃分析结果,我们得出结论,在7至12岁儿童中,经过17至24周的治疗后,阿托品压抑疗法和遮盖疗法在视力结果方面没有差异。在能够开展比较12岁以上患者的阿托品压抑疗法和遮盖疗法的研究之前,需要进一步的证据来确定弱视治疗对年龄较大患者群体的疗效。阿托品压抑疗法可能会导致更频繁的轻微不良反应,如畏光,但在临床环境中,这需要与每周两次滴眼剂相对于每日遮盖的潜在实际益处相权衡。
本研究由英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)和英国健康教育署(HEE)提供资金。本文提供了通俗易懂的摘要。