Jason C Yam1, Fen Fen Li2, Xiujuan Zhang2, Shu Min Tang3, Benjamin H K Yip4, Ka Wai Kam5, Simon T Ko6, Alvin L Young5, Clement C Tham7, Li Jia Chen5, Chi Pui Pang2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong, China; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China. Electronic address: yamcheuksing@cuhk.edu.hk. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Department of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. 4. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 5. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Tung Wah Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 7. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong, China; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine eye drops over 2 years to determine which is the optimal concentration for longer-term myopia control. DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked trial extended from the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) Study. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred eighty-three of 438 children (87%) aged 4 to 12 years with myopia of at least -1.0 diopter (D) originally randomized to receive atropine 0.05%, 0.025%, 0.01%, or placebo once daily in both eyes in the LAMP phase 1 study were continued in this extended trial (phase 2). METHODS: Children in the placebo group (phase 1) were switched to receive 0.05% atropine from the beginning of the second-year follow-up, whereas those in the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups continued with the same regimen. Cycloplegic refraction, axial length (AL), accommodation amplitude, photopic and mesopic pupil diameter, and best-corrected visual acuity were measured at 4-month intervals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in spherical equivalent (SE) and AL and their differences between groups. RESULTS: Over the 2-year period, the mean SE progression was 0.55±0.86 D, 0.85±0.73 D, and 1.12±0.85 D in the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups, respectively (P = 0.015, P < 0.001, and P = 0.02, respectively, for pairwise comparisons), with mean AL changes over 2 years of 0.39±0.35 mm, 0.50±0.33 mm, and 0.59±0.38 mm (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.10, respectively). Compared with the first year, the second-year efficacy of 0.05% and 0.025% atropine remained similar (P >0.1), but improved mildly in the 0.01% atropine group (P = 0.04). For the phase 1 placebo group, the myopia progression was reduced significantly after switching to 0.05% atropine (SE change, 0.18 D in second year vs. 0.82 D in first year [P < 0.001]; AL elongated 0.15 mm in second year vs. 0.43 mm in first year [P < 0.001]). Accommodation loss and change in pupil size in all concentrations remained similar to the first-year results and were well tolerated. Visual acuity and vision-related quality of life remained unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2 years, the efficacy of 0.05% atropine observed was double that observed with 0.01% atropine, and it remained the optimal concentration among the studied atropine concentrations in slowing myopia progression.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine eye drops over 2 years to determine which is the optimal concentration for longer-term myopia control. DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked trial extended from the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) Study. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred eighty-three of 438 children (87%) aged 4 to 12 years with myopia of at least -1.0 diopter (D) originally randomized to receive atropine 0.05%, 0.025%, 0.01%, or placebo once daily in both eyes in the LAMP phase 1 study were continued in this extended trial (phase 2). METHODS:Children in the placebo group (phase 1) were switched to receive 0.05% atropine from the beginning of the second-year follow-up, whereas those in the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups continued with the same regimen. Cycloplegic refraction, axial length (AL), accommodation amplitude, photopic and mesopic pupil diameter, and best-corrected visual acuity were measured at 4-month intervals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in spherical equivalent (SE) and AL and their differences between groups. RESULTS: Over the 2-year period, the mean SE progression was 0.55±0.86 D, 0.85±0.73 D, and 1.12±0.85 D in the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups, respectively (P = 0.015, P < 0.001, and P = 0.02, respectively, for pairwise comparisons), with mean AL changes over 2 years of 0.39±0.35 mm, 0.50±0.33 mm, and 0.59±0.38 mm (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.10, respectively). Compared with the first year, the second-year efficacy of 0.05% and 0.025% atropine remained similar (P >0.1), but improved mildly in the 0.01% atropine group (P = 0.04). For the phase 1 placebo group, the myopia progression was reduced significantly after switching to 0.05% atropine (SE change, 0.18 D in second year vs. 0.82 D in first year [P < 0.001]; AL elongated 0.15 mm in second year vs. 0.43 mm in first year [P < 0.001]). Accommodation loss and change in pupil size in all concentrations remained similar to the first-year results and were well tolerated. Visual acuity and vision-related quality of life remained unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2 years, the efficacy of 0.05% atropine observed was double that observed with 0.01% atropine, and it remained the optimal concentration among the studied atropine concentrations in slowing myopia progression.
Authors: Lutz Joachimsen; Navid Farassat; Tim Bleul; Daniel Böhringer; Wolf A Lagrèze; Michael Reich Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 2.031