Efficacy and Safety of 8 Atropine Concentrations for Myopia Control in Children: A Network Meta-Analysis.

TOPIC

Comparative efficacy and safety of different concentrations of atropine for myopia control.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Atropine is known to be an effective intervention to delay myopia progression. Nonetheless, no well-supported evidence exists yet to rank the clinical outcomes of various concentrations of atropine.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov on April 14, 2021. We selected studies involving atropine treatment of at least 1 year's duration for myopia control in children. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared 8 atropine concentrations (1% to 0.01%). We ranked the atropine concentrations for the corresponding outcomes by P score (estimate of probability of being best treatment). Our primary outcomes were mean annual changes in refraction (diopters/year) and axial length (AXL; millimeters/year). We extracted data on the proportion of eyes showing myopia progression and safety outcomes (photopic and mesopic pupil diameter, accommodation amplitude, and distance and near best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA]).

RESULTS

Thirty pairwise comparisons from 16 RCTs (3272 participants) were obtained. Our NMA ranked the 1%, 0.5%, and 0.05% atropine concentrations as the 3 most beneficial for myopia control, as assessed for both primary outcomes: 1% atropine (mean differences compared with control: refraction, 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-1.04]; AXL, -0.35 [-0.46 to -0.25]); 0.5% atropine (mean differences compared with control: refraction, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.40-1.00]; AXL, -0.23 [-0.38 to -0.07]); 0.05% atropine (mean differences compared with control: refraction, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.17-1.07]; AXL, -0.25 [-0.44 to -0.06]). In terms of myopia control as assessed by relative risk (RR) for overall myopia progression, 0.05% was ranked as the most beneficial concentration (RR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.27-0.57]). The risk for adverse effects tended to rise as the atropine concentration was increased, although this tendency was not evident for distance BCVA. No valid network was formed for near BCVA.

DISCUSSION

The ranking probability for efficacy was not proportional to dose (i.e., 0.05% atropine was comparable with that of high-dose atropine [1% and 0.5%]), although those for pupil size and accommodation amplitude were dose related.