PURPOSE: Explore compliance with occlusion treatment of amblyopia in the Monitored and Randomized Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Studies (MOTAS and ROTAS), using objective monitoring. METHODS: Both studies had a three-phase protocol: initial assessment, refractive adaptation, and occlusion. In the occlusion phase, participants were instructed to dose for 6 hours/day (MOTAS) or randomized to 6 or 12 hour/day (ROTAS). Dose was monitored continuously using an occlusion dose monitor (ODM). RESULTS:One hundred and fifty-two patients (71 male, 81 female; 122 Caucasian, 30 non-Caucasian) of mean ±SD age 68 ± 18 months participated. Amblyopia was defined as an interocular acuity difference of at least 0.1 logMAR and was associated with anisometropia in 50, strabismus in 44, and both (mixed) in 58. Median duration of occlusion was 99 days (interquartile range 72 days). Mean compliance was 44%, mean proportion of days with no patch worn was 42%. Compliance was lower (39%) on weekends compared with weekdays (46%, P = 0.04), as was the likelihood of dosing at all (52% vs. 60%, P = 0.028). Compliance was lower when attendance was less frequent (P < 0.001) and with prolonged treatment duration (P < 0.001). Age, sex, amblyopia type, and severity were not associated with compliance. Mixture modeling suggested three subpopulations of patch day doses: less than 30 minutes; doses that achieve 30% to 80% compliance; and doses that achieve around 100% compliance. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that compliance with patching treatment averages less than 50% and is influenced by several factors. A greater understanding of these influences should improve treatment outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00274664).
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Explore compliance with occlusion treatment of amblyopia in the Monitored and Randomized Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Studies (MOTAS and ROTAS), using objective monitoring. METHODS: Both studies had a three-phase protocol: initial assessment, refractive adaptation, and occlusion. In the occlusion phase, participants were instructed to dose for 6 hours/day (MOTAS) or randomized to 6 or 12 hour/day (ROTAS). Dose was monitored continuously using an occlusion dose monitor (ODM). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-two patients (71 male, 81 female; 122 Caucasian, 30 non-Caucasian) of mean ± SD age 68 ± 18 months participated. Amblyopia was defined as an interocular acuity difference of at least 0.1 logMAR and was associated with anisometropia in 50, strabismus in 44, and both (mixed) in 58. Median duration of occlusion was 99 days (interquartile range 72 days). Mean compliance was 44%, mean proportion of days with no patch worn was 42%. Compliance was lower (39%) on weekends compared with weekdays (46%, P = 0.04), as was the likelihood of dosing at all (52% vs. 60%, P = 0.028). Compliance was lower when attendance was less frequent (P < 0.001) and with prolonged treatment duration (P < 0.001). Age, sex, amblyopia type, and severity were not associated with compliance. Mixture modeling suggested three subpopulations of patch day doses: less than 30 minutes; doses that achieve 30% to 80% compliance; and doses that achieve around 100% compliance. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that compliance with patching treatment averages less than 50% and is influenced by several factors. A greater understanding of these influences should improve treatment outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00274664).
Authors: Eileen E Birch; Simone L Li; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; David Stager; Lori Dao; David R Stager Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Jingyun Wang; Daniel E Neely; Jay Galli; Joshua Schliesser; April Graves; Tina G Damarjian; Jessica Kovarik; James Bowsher; Heather A Smith; Dana Donaldson; Kathryn M Haider; Gavin J Roberts; Derek T Sprunger; David A Plager Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Scott R Lambert; Michael J Lynn; E Eugenie Hartmann; Lindreth DuBois; Carolyn Drews-Botsch; Sharon F Freedman; David A Plager; Edward G Buckley; M Edward Wilson Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Jingyun Wang; Hongxin Xu; Bryan De La Cruz; Sarah E Morale; Reed M Jost; David A Leske; Jonathan M Holmes; Eileen E Birch Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 1.220