Fen Fen Li1, Yuzhou Zhang1, Xiujuan Zhang1, Benjamin Hon Kei Yip2, Shu Min Tang3, Ka Wai Kam4, Alvin L Young4, Li Jia Chen5, Clement C Tham6, Chi Pui Pang7, Jason C Yam8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 2. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. 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. 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 SAR, 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 SAR, China; Hong Kong Hub of Paediatric Excellence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 6. 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 SAR, China; Hong Kong Hub of Paediatric Excellence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China; Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China. 7. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China. 8. 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 SAR, China; Hong Kong Hub of Paediatric Excellence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China; Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Ophthalmology, Hong Kong Children's Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: yamcheuksing@cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of age at treatment and other factors on treatment response to atropine in the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) Study. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from a randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred fifty children aged 4 to 12 years who originally were assigned to receive 0.05%, 0.025%, or 0.01% atropine or placebo once daily, and who completed 2 years of the LAMP Study, were included. In the second year, the placebo group was switched to the 0.05% atropine group. METHODS: Potential predictive factors for change in spherical equivalent (SE) and axial length (AL) over 2 years were evaluated by generalized estimating equations in each treatment group. Evaluated factors included age at treatment, gender, baseline refraction, parental myopia, time outdoors, diopter hours of near work, and treatment compliance. Estimated mean values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of change in SE and AL over 2 years also were generated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with SE change and AL change over 2 years were the primary outcome measures. Associated factors during the first year were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: In 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups, younger age was the only factor associated with SE progression (coefficient of 0.14, 0.15, and 0.20, respectively) and AL elongation (coefficient of -0.10, -0.11, and -0.12, respectively) over 2 years; the younger the age, the poorer the response. At each year of age from 4 to 12 years across the treatment groups, higher-concentration atropine showed a better treatment response, following a concentration-dependent effect (Ptrend <0.05 for each age group). In addition, the mean SE progression in 6-year-old children receiving 0.05% atropine (-0.90 diopter [D]; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.82) was similar to that of 8-year-old children receiving 0.025% atropine (-0.89 D; 95% CI, -0.94 to -0.83) and 10-year-old children receiving 0.01% atropine (-0.92 D; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.85). All concentrations were well tolerated in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Younger age is associated with poor treatment response to low-concentration atropine at 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01%. Among concentrations studied, younger children required the highest 0.05% concentration to achieve similar reduction in myopic progression as older children receiving lower concentrations.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of age at treatment and other factors on treatment response to atropine in the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) Study. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from a randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred fifty children aged 4 to 12 years who originally were assigned to receive 0.05%, 0.025%, or 0.01% atropine or placebo once daily, and who completed 2 years of the LAMP Study, were included. In the second year, the placebo group was switched to the 0.05% atropine group. METHODS: Potential predictive factors for change in spherical equivalent (SE) and axial length (AL) over 2 years were evaluated by generalized estimating equations in each treatment group. Evaluated factors included age at treatment, gender, baseline refraction, parental myopia, time outdoors, diopter hours of near work, and treatment compliance. Estimated mean values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of change in SE and AL over 2 years also were generated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with SE change and AL change over 2 years were the primary outcome measures. Associated factors during the first year were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: In 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups, younger age was the only factor associated with SE progression (coefficient of 0.14, 0.15, and 0.20, respectively) and AL elongation (coefficient of -0.10, -0.11, and -0.12, respectively) over 2 years; the younger the age, the poorer the response. At each year of age from 4 to 12 years across the treatment groups, higher-concentration atropine showed a better treatment response, following a concentration-dependent effect (Ptrend <0.05 for each age group). In addition, the mean SE progression in 6-year-old children receiving 0.05% atropine (-0.90 diopter [D]; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.82) was similar to that of 8-year-old children receiving 0.025% atropine (-0.89 D; 95% CI, -0.94 to -0.83) and 10-year-old children receiving 0.01% atropine (-0.92 D; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.85). All concentrations were well tolerated in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Younger age is associated with poor treatment response to low-concentration atropine at 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01%. Among concentrations studied, younger children required the highest 0.05% concentration to achieve similar reduction in myopic progression as older children receiving lower concentrations.
Authors: Henry H L Chan; Kai Yip Choi; Alex L K Ng; Bonnie N K Choy; Jonathan Cheuk Hung Chan; Sonia S H Chan; Serena Z C Li; Wing Yan Yu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.996