Krista R Kelly1, Reed M Jost1, Lori Dao2, Cynthia L Beauchamp2, Joel N Leffler3, Eileen E Birch4. 1. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas. 2. ABC Eyes Pediatric Ophthalmology, PA, Dallas, Texas. 3. Children's Eye Care of North Texas, PA, Plano. 4. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas4Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Fellow eye patching has long been the standard treatment for amblyopia, but it does not always restore 20/20 vision or teach the eyes to work together. Amblyopia can be treated with binocular games that rebalance contrast between the eyes so that a child may overcome suppression. However, it is unclear whether binocular treatment is comparable to patching in treating amblyopia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a binocular iPad (Apple Inc) adventure game as amblyopia treatment and compare this binocular treatment with patching, the current standard of care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This investigation was a randomized clinical trial with a crossover design at a nonprofit eye research institute. Between February 20, 2015, and January 4, 2016, a total of 28 patients were enrolled in the study, with 14 randomized to binocular game treatment and 14 to patching treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Binocular game and patching as amblyopia treatments. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the 2-week visit. Secondary outcomes were change in stereoacuity and suppression at the 2-week visit and change in BCVA at the 4-week visit. RESULTS: Among 28 children, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 6.7 (1.4) years (age range, 4.6-9.5 years), and 7 (25%) were female. At baseline, the mean (SD) amblyopic eye BCVA was 0.48 (0.14) logMAR (approximately 20/63; range, 0.3-0.8 logMAR [20/40 to 20/125]), with 14 children randomized to the binocular game and 14 to patching for 2 weeks. At the 2-week visit, improvement in amblyopic eye BCVA was greater with the binocular game compared with patching, with a mean (SD) improvement of 0.15 (0.08) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.5 [0.8] lines) vs 0.07 (0.08) logMAR (mean [SD], 0.7 [0.8] line; P = .02) after 2 weeks of treatment. These improvements from baseline were significant for the binocular game (mean [SD] improvement, 1.5 [0.8] lines; P < .001) and for patching (mean [SD] improvement, 0.7 [0.8] line; P = .006). Depth of suppression improved from baseline at the 2-week visit for the binocular game (mean [SD], 4.82 [2.82] vs 3.24 [2.87]; P = .03) and for patching (mean [SD], 4.77 [3.10] vs 2.57 [1.67]; P = .004). Patching children crossed over to binocular game treatment, and all 28 children played the game for another 2 weeks. At the 4-week visit, no group difference was found in BCVA change, with children who crossed over to the binocular games catching up with children treated with binocular games, for a mean (SD) improvement of 0.17 (0.10) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.7 [1.0] lines) for the binocular game vs a mean (SD) improvement of 0.16 (0.12) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.6 [1.2] lines) for the patching crossover (P = .73). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A binocular iPad game was effective in treating childhood amblyopia and was more efficacious than patching at the 2-week visit. Binocular games that rebalance contrast to overcome suppression are a promising additional option for treating amblyopia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02365090.
IMPORTANCE: Fellow eye patching has long been the standard treatment for amblyopia, but it does not always restore 20/20 vision or teach the eyes to work together. Amblyopia can be treated with binocular games that rebalance contrast between the eyes so that a child may overcome suppression. However, it is unclear whether binocular treatment is comparable to patching in treating amblyopia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a binocular iPad (Apple Inc) adventure game as amblyopia treatment and compare this binocular treatment with patching, the current standard of care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This investigation was a randomized clinical trial with a crossover design at a nonprofit eye research institute. Between February 20, 2015, and January 4, 2016, a total of 28 patients were enrolled in the study, with 14 randomized to binocular game treatment and 14 to patching treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Binocular game and patching as amblyopia treatments. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the 2-week visit. Secondary outcomes were change in stereoacuity and suppression at the 2-week visit and change in BCVA at the 4-week visit. RESULTS: Among 28 children, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 6.7 (1.4) years (age range, 4.6-9.5 years), and 7 (25%) were female. At baseline, the mean (SD) amblyopic eye BCVA was 0.48 (0.14) logMAR (approximately 20/63; range, 0.3-0.8 logMAR [20/40 to 20/125]), with 14 children randomized to the binocular game and 14 to patching for 2 weeks. At the 2-week visit, improvement in amblyopic eye BCVA was greater with the binocular game compared with patching, with a mean (SD) improvement of 0.15 (0.08) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.5 [0.8] lines) vs 0.07 (0.08) logMAR (mean [SD], 0.7 [0.8] line; P = .02) after 2 weeks of treatment. These improvements from baseline were significant for the binocular game (mean [SD] improvement, 1.5 [0.8] lines; P < .001) and for patching (mean [SD] improvement, 0.7 [0.8] line; P = .006). Depth of suppression improved from baseline at the 2-week visit for the binocular game (mean [SD], 4.82 [2.82] vs 3.24 [2.87]; P = .03) and for patching (mean [SD], 4.77 [3.10] vs 2.57 [1.67]; P = .004). Patching children crossed over to binocular game treatment, and all 28 children played the game for another 2 weeks. At the 4-week visit, no group difference was found in BCVA change, with children who crossed over to the binocular games catching up with children treated with binocular games, for a mean (SD) improvement of 0.17 (0.10) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.7 [1.0] lines) for the binocular game vs a mean (SD) improvement of 0.16 (0.12) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.6 [1.2] lines) for the patching crossover (P = .73). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A binocular iPad game was effective in treating childhood amblyopia and was more efficacious than patching at the 2-week visit. Binocular games that rebalance contrast to overcome suppression are a promising additional option for treating amblyopia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02365090.
Authors: P S Moke; A H Turpin; R W Beck; J M Holmes; M X Repka; E E Birch; R W Hertle; R T Kraker; J M Miller; C A Johnson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: J M Holmes; R W Beck; M X Repka; D A Leske; R T Kraker; R C Blair; P S Moke; E E Birch; R A Saunders; R W Hertle; G E Quinn; K A Simons; J M Miller Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2001-09
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: Simone L Li; Alexandre Reynaud; Robert F Hess; Yi-Zhong Wang; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; Lori Dao; David Stager; Eileen E Birch Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Jonathan M Holmes; Roy W Beck; Raymond T Kraker; William F Astle; Eileen E Birch; Stephen R Cole; Susan A Cotter; Sean Donahue; Donald F Everett; Richard W Hertle; Ronald V Keech; Evelyn Paysse; Graham F Quinn; Michael X Repka; Mitchell M Scheiman Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Robert P Rutstein; Graham E Quinn; Elizabeth L Lazar; Roy W Beck; Dean J Bonsall; Susan A Cotter; Eric R Crouch; Jonathan M Holmes; Darren L Hoover; David A Leske; Ingryd J Lorenzana; Michael X Repka; Donny W Suh Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Susan A Cotter; Raymond H Chu; Danielle L Chandler; Roy W Beck; Jonathan M Holmes; Melissa L Rice; Richard W Hertle; Eileen E Birch; Pamela S Moke Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Christina Gambacorta; Mor Nahum; Indu Vedamurthy; Jessica Bayliss; Josh Jordan; Daphne Bavelier; Dennis M Levi Journal: Vision Res Date: 2018-05-12 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Tina Y Gao; Cindy X Guo; Raiju J Babu; Joanna M Black; William R Bobier; Arijit Chakraborty; Shuan Dai; Robert F Hess; Michelle Jenkins; Yannan Jiang; Lisa S Kearns; Lionel Kowal; Carly S Y Lam; Peter C K Pang; Varsha Parag; Roberto Pieri; Rajkumar Nallour Raveendren; Jayshree South; Sandra Elfride Staffieri; Angela Wadham; Natalie Walker; Benjamin Thompson Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Eileen E Birch; Reed M Jost; Angie De La Cruz; Krista R Kelly; Cynthia L Beauchamp; Lori Dao; David Stager; Joel N Leffler Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Jonathan M Holmes; Ruth E Manny; Elizabeth L Lazar; Eileen E Birch; Krista R Kelly; Allison I Summers; Stacy R Martinson; Aparna Raghuram; Jeffrey D Colburn; Christine Law; Justin D Marsh; Derek P Bitner; Raymond T Kraker; David K Wallace Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: María Begoña Coco-Martin; Pedro L Valenzuela; Miguel J Maldonado-López; Alejandro Santos-Lozano; Ainhoa Molina-Martín; David P Piñero Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 1.779