Jason C Yam1, Xiu Juan Zhang2, Yuzhou Zhang2, Yu Meng Wang2, Shu Min Tang3, Fen Fen Li4, Ka Wai Kam5, Simon T Ko6, Benjamin H K Yip7, Alvin L Young5, Clement C Tham8, Li Jia Chen9, Chi Pui Pang10. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong; Hong Kong Hub of Paediatric Excellence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Department of Ophthalmology, Hong Kong Children's Hospital, Hong Kong. Electronic address: yamcheuksing@cuhk.edu.hk. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; 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; The Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China. 5. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Hong Kong Children's Hospital, Hong Kong; Department of Ophthalmology, Tung Wah Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong. 7. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 8. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Hong Kong; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong; Hong Kong Hub of Paediatric Excellence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 9. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong; Hong Kong Hub of Paediatric Excellence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 10. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Hong Kong Hub of Paediatric Excellence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (1) To compare the efficacy of continued and stopping treatment for 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine during the third year. (2) To evaluate the efficacy of continued treatment over 3 years. (3) To investigate the rebound phenomenon and its determinants after cessation of treatment. DESIGN: A randomized, double-masked extended trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 350 of 438 children aged 4 to 12 years originally recruited into the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study. METHODS: At the beginning of the third year, children in each group were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to continued treatment and washout subgroups. Cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) refraction and axial length (AL) were measured at 4-month intervals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in SE and AL between groups. RESULTS: A total of 326 children completed 3 years of follow-up. During the third year, SE progression and AL elongation were faster in the washout subgroups than in the continued treatment groups across all concentrations: -0.68 ± 0.49 diopters (D) versus -0.28 ± 0.42 D (P < 0.001) and 0.33 ± 0.17 mm versus 0.17 ± 0.14 mm (P < 0.001) for the 0.05%; -0.57 ± 0.38 D versus -0.35 ± 0.37 D (P = 0.004) and 0.29 ± 0.14 mm versus 0.20 ± 0.15 mm (P = 0.001) for the 0.025%; -0.56 ± 0.40 D versus -0.38 ± 0.49 D (P = 0.04) and 0.29 ± 0.15 mm versus 0.24 ± 0.18 mm (P = 0.13) for the 0.01%. Over the 3-year period, SE progressions were -0.73 ± 1.04 D, -1.31 ± 0.92 D, and -1.60 ± 1.32 D (P = 0.001) for the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% groups in the continued treatment subgroups, respectively, and -1.15 ± 1.13 D, -1.47 ± 0.77 D, and -1.81 ± 1.10 D (P = 0.03), respectively, in the washout subgroup. The respective AL elongations were 0.50 ± 0.40 mm, 0.74 ± 0.41 mm, and 0.89 ± 0.53 mm (P < 0.001) for the continued treatment subgroups and 0.70 ± 0.47 mm, 0.82 ± 0.37 mm, and 0.98 ± 0.48 mm (P = 0.04) for the washout subgroup. The rebound SE progressions during washout were concentration dependent, but their differences were clinically small (P = 0.15). Older age and lower concentration were associated with smaller rebound effects in both SE progression (P < 0.001) and AL elongation (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the third year, continued atropine treatment achieved a better effect across all concentrations compared with the washout regimen. 0.05% atropine remained the optimal concentration over 3 years in Chinese children. The differences in rebound effects were clinically small across all 3 studied atropine concentrations. Stopping treatment at an older age and lower concentration are associated with a smaller rebound.
PURPOSE: (1) To compare the efficacy of continued and stopping treatment for 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine during the third year. (2) To evaluate the efficacy of continued treatment over 3 years. (3) To investigate the rebound phenomenon and its determinants after cessation of treatment. DESIGN: A randomized, double-masked extended trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 350 of 438 children aged 4 to 12 years originally recruited into the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study. METHODS: At the beginning of the third year, children in each group were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to continued treatment and washout subgroups. Cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) refraction and axial length (AL) were measured at 4-month intervals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in SE and AL between groups. RESULTS: A total of 326 children completed 3 years of follow-up. During the third year, SE progression and AL elongation were faster in the washout subgroups than in the continued treatment groups across all concentrations: -0.68 ± 0.49 diopters (D) versus -0.28 ± 0.42 D (P < 0.001) and 0.33 ± 0.17 mm versus 0.17 ± 0.14 mm (P < 0.001) for the 0.05%; -0.57 ± 0.38 D versus -0.35 ± 0.37 D (P = 0.004) and 0.29 ± 0.14 mm versus 0.20 ± 0.15 mm (P = 0.001) for the 0.025%; -0.56 ± 0.40 D versus -0.38 ± 0.49 D (P = 0.04) and 0.29 ± 0.15 mm versus 0.24 ± 0.18 mm (P = 0.13) for the 0.01%. Over the 3-year period, SE progressions were -0.73 ± 1.04 D, -1.31 ± 0.92 D, and -1.60 ± 1.32 D (P = 0.001) for the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% groups in the continued treatment subgroups, respectively, and -1.15 ± 1.13 D, -1.47 ± 0.77 D, and -1.81 ± 1.10 D (P = 0.03), respectively, in the washout subgroup. The respective AL elongations were 0.50 ± 0.40 mm, 0.74 ± 0.41 mm, and 0.89 ± 0.53 mm (P < 0.001) for the continued treatment subgroups and 0.70 ± 0.47 mm, 0.82 ± 0.37 mm, and 0.98 ± 0.48 mm (P = 0.04) for the washout subgroup. The rebound SE progressions during washout were concentration dependent, but their differences were clinically small (P = 0.15). Older age and lower concentration were associated with smaller rebound effects in both SE progression (P < 0.001) and AL elongation (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the third year, continued atropine treatment achieved a better effect across all concentrations compared with the washout regimen. 0.05% atropine remained the optimal concentration over 3 years in Chinese children. The differences in rebound effects were clinically small across all 3 studied atropine concentrations. Stopping treatment at an older age and lower concentration are associated with a smaller rebound.
Authors: Meng-Jun Zhu; Li Ding; Lin-Lin Du; Jun Chen; Xian-Gui He; Shan-Shan Li; Hai-Dong Zou Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 1.645
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