Reed M Jost1, Krista R Kelly2, Jeffrey S Hunter3, David R Stager4, Becky Luu4, Joel N Leffler5, Lori Dao6, Cynthia L Beauchamp6, Eileen E Birch7. 1. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: reedjost@retinafoundation.org. 2. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas. 3. Heaton Eye Associates, Tyler, Texas. 4. Pediatric Ophthalmology & Adult Strabismus, Plano, Texas. 5. Children's Eye Care of North Texas, Plano, Texas. 6. ABC Eyes Pediatric Ophthalmology, Dallas, Texas. 7. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas; University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most clinical trials of contrast-rebalanced binocular amblyopia treatment used a contrast increment protocol of 10% daily with successful play. Paired with a definition of success requiring only 15-30 min/day of gameplay, this increment protocol could allow children to reach 100% fellow eye contrast in 3-9 hours; however, this may not provide adequate therapeutic time with reduced fellow eye contrast. The purpose of this study was to compare the original protocol against three alternative contrast increment protocols designed to increase the number of treatment hours. METHODS: In this prospective study, 63 amblyopic children (4-10 years; amblyopic eye visual acuity, 20/40-125) were randomly assigned one of four daily contrast increment protocols for 4 weeks, all starting with 20% fellow eye contrast: 10%, 5%, 0%, or 10% for first 4 weeks then reset to 20% and repeat 10% increment for the final 4 weeks. Children played contrast-rebalanced games for 1 hour/day, 5 days/week. Best-corrected visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks until the 8-week outcome visit. RESULTS: At baseline, mean amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity was 0.47 ± 0.14 logMAR (20/60), improving overall 0.14 ± 0.08 logMAR (1.4 lines; P < 0.0001) at 8 weeks. All four protocols resulted in similar improvement in visual acuity (0.13-0.16 logMAR; all Ps < 0.0002). Stereoacuity and suppression also improved (all Ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: None of the new protocols resulted in less improvement than the original 10% contrast increment protocol. Contrast-rebalanced binocular games yielded significant improvements in visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression with or without daily contrast increments.
BACKGROUND: Most clinical trials of contrast-rebalanced binocular amblyopia treatment used a contrast increment protocol of 10% daily with successful play. Paired with a definition of success requiring only 15-30 min/day of gameplay, this increment protocol could allow children to reach 100% fellow eye contrast in 3-9 hours; however, this may not provide adequate therapeutic time with reduced fellow eye contrast. The purpose of this study was to compare the original protocol against three alternative contrast increment protocols designed to increase the number of treatment hours. METHODS: In this prospective study, 63 amblyopic children (4-10 years; amblyopic eye visual acuity, 20/40-125) were randomly assigned one of four daily contrast increment protocols for 4 weeks, all starting with 20% fellow eye contrast: 10%, 5%, 0%, or 10% for first 4 weeks then reset to 20% and repeat 10% increment for the final 4 weeks. Children played contrast-rebalanced games for 1 hour/day, 5 days/week. Best-corrected visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks until the 8-week outcome visit. RESULTS: At baseline, mean amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity was 0.47 ± 0.14 logMAR (20/60), improving overall 0.14 ± 0.08 logMAR (1.4 lines; P < 0.0001) at 8 weeks. All four protocols resulted in similar improvement in visual acuity (0.13-0.16 logMAR; all Ps < 0.0002). Stereoacuity and suppression also improved (all Ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: None of the new protocols resulted in less improvement than the original 10% contrast increment protocol. Contrast-rebalanced binocular games yielded significant improvements in visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression with or without daily contrast increments.
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: 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: Simone L Li; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; Lori Dao; David Stager; Eileen E Birch Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Michael X Repka; Roy W Beck; Jonathan M Holmes; Eileen E Birch; Danielle L Chandler; Susan A Cotter; Richard W Hertle; Raymond T Kraker; Pamela S Moke; Graham E Quinn; Mitchell M Scheiman Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2003-05
Authors: Roy W Beck; Pamela S Moke; Andrew H Turpin; Frederick L Ferris; John Paul SanGiovanni; Chris A Johnson; Eileen E Birch; Danielle L Chandler; Terry A Cox; R Clifford Blair; Raymond T Kraker Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jonathan M Holmes; Vivian M Manh; Elizabeth L Lazar; Roy W Beck; Eileen E Birch; Raymond T Kraker; Eric R Crouch; S Ayse Erzurum; Nausheen Khuddus; Allison I Summers; David K Wallace Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Eileen E Birch; Sarah E Morale; Reed M Jost; Angie De La Cruz; Krista R Kelly; Yi-Zhong Wang; Peter J Bex Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald E Mitchell; Elise Aronitz; Philip Bobbie-Ansah; Nathan Crowder; Kevin R Duffy Journal: Neural Plast Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Eileen E Birch; Reed M Jost; Krista R Kelly; Joel N Leffler; Lori Dao; Cynthia L Beauchamp Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Ruth E Manny; Jonathan M Holmes; Raymond T Kraker; Zhuokai Li; Amy L Waters; Krista R Kelly; Lingkun Kong; Earl R Crouch; Ingryd J Lorenzana; Maan S Alkharashi; Jennifer A Galvin; Melissa L Rice; B Michele Melia; Susan A Cotter Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Reed M Jost; Lindsey A Hudgins; Lori M Dao; David R Stager; Becky Luu; Cynthia L Beauchamp; Jeffrey S Hunter; Prashanthi Giridhar; Yi-Zhong Wang; Eileen E Birch Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 4.379