Fixation instability in amblyopia: Oculomotor disease biomarkers predictive of treatment effectiveness

Amblyopic patients are known to have fixation instability, particularly of the amblyopic eye. The stability of the fixation is affected by the presence of nystagmus, the frequency and amplitude of fixational saccades and inter-saccadic drifts. Amblyopic patients without nystagmus have increased amplitude of the fixational saccades with reduced frequency of the physiologic microsaccades and have increased inter-saccadic drifts. Amblyopia patients who have experienced a disruption in binocularity in early infancy develop fusion maldevelopment nystagmus (FMN) previously called latent nystagmus as it is more evident during monocular viewing conditions. We have found that some amblyopic patients can have nystagmus with slow phases that are not directed nasally and without the reversal in direction on ocular occlusion, features seen in patients with FMN. The current mainstay of amblyopia treatment comprises of part-time occlusion therapy of the non-amblyopic eye. The amount of patching treatment is in the range of 2\u20136 h/day as determined by the severity of amblyopia. Despite treatment, up to 40% of patients have residual amblyopia. We analyzed the effectiveness of part-time occlusion therapy in amblyopic patients as a function of fixation instability. We categorized amblyopic patients based on their eye movement waveforms obtained during a visual fixation task into those lacking nystagmus, those with FMN and those with nystagmus but no FMN. We did a retrospective chart review to gather information about their clinical characteristics and treatment response. We found that patients with FMN require a more prolonged duration of treatment and have a poorer recovery of stereopsis compared to patients with nystagmus but no FMN and patients lacking nystagmus. This study suggests that eye movement assessment provides valuable information in the management of amblyopia

Long-term visual and treatment outcomes of whole-population pre-school visual screening (PSVS) in children:a longitudinal, retrospective, population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND: This study reports the long-term visual and treatment outcomes in a whole-population, orthoptic-delivered pre-school visual screening (PSVS) programme in Scotland and further examines their associations with socioeconomic backgrounds and home circumstances. METHODS: Retrospective case review was conducted on 430 children who failed PSVS. Outcome measures included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), severity of amblyopia (mild, moderate and severe), binocular vision (BV) (normal, poor and none), ophthalmic diagnosis and treatment modalities. Parameters at discharge were compared to those at baseline and were measured against the Scottish index of multiple deprivation (SIMD) and Health plan indicator (HPI), which are indices of deprivation and status of home circumstances. RESULTS: The proportion of children with amblyopia reduced from 92.3% (373/404) at baseline to 29.1% (106/364) at discharge (p < 0.001). Eighty percent (291/364) had good BV at discharge compared to 29.2% (118/404) at baseline (p < 0.001). Children from more socioeconomically deprived areas (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.01–4.30, p = 0.003) or adverse family backgrounds (OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.99–7.74, p = 0.002) were more likely to attend poorly and/or become lost to follow-up. Children from worse home circumstances were five times more likely to have residual amblyopia (OR 5.37, 95% CI 3.29–10.07, p < 0.001) and three times more likely to have poor/no BV (OR 3.41, 95% CI 2.49–4.66, p < 0.001) than those from better home circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Orthoptic-delivered PSVS is successful at screening and managing amblyopia. Children from homes requiring social care input are less likely to attend and are more likely to have poorer visual outcomes

Randomised controlled trial of video clips and interactive games to improve vision in children with amblyopia using the I-BiT system

Background Traditional treatment of amblyopia involves either wearing a patch or atropine penalisation of the better eye. A new treatment is being developed on the basis of virtual reality technology allowing either DVD footage or computer games which present a common background to both eyes and the foreground, containing the imagery of interest, only to the amblyopic eye. Methods A randomised control trial was performed on patients with amblyopia aged 4–8 years with three arms. All three arms had dichoptic stimulation using shutter glass technology. One arm had DVD footage shown to the amblyopic eye and common background to both, the second used a modified shooter game, Nux, with sprite and targets presented to the amblyopic eye (and background to both) while the third arm had both background and foreground presented to both eyes (non-interactive binocular treatment (non-I-BiT) games). Results Seventy-five patients were randomised; 67 were residual amblyopes and 70 had an associated strabismus. The visual acuity improved in all three arms by approximately 0.07 logMAR in the amblyopic eye at 6 weeks. There was no difference between I-BiT DVD and non-I-BiT games compared with I-BiT games (stated primary outcome) in terms of gain in vision. Conclusions There was a modest vision improvement in all three arms. Treatment was well tolerated and safe. There was no difference between the three treatments in terms of primary stated outcomes but treatment duration was short and the high proportion of previously treated amblyopia and strabismic amblyopia disadvantaged dichoptic stimulation treatment

Amblyopia and quality of life: a systematic review

Background/Aims Amblyopia is a common condition which can affect up to 5% of the general population. The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment have been explored in the literature. Methods A systematic literature search was undertaken (16th-30th January 2007) to identify the HRQoL implications of amblyopia and/or its treatment. Results A total of 25 papers were included in the literature review. The HRQoL implications of amblyopia related specifically to amblyopia treatment, rather than the condition itself. These included the impact upon family life; social interactions; difficulties undertaking daily activities; and feelings and behaviour. The identified studies adopted a number of methodologies. The study populations included; children with the condition; parents of children with amblyopia; and adults who had undertaken amblyopia treatment as a child. Some studies developed their own measures of HRQoL, and others determined HRQoL through proxy measures. Conclusions The reported findings of the HRQoL implications are of importance when considering the management of cases of amblyopia. Further research is required to assess the immediate and long-term effects of amblyopia and/or its treatment upon HRQoL using a more standardised approach

Effectiveness of screening preschool children for amblyopia: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Amblyopia and amblyogenic factors like strabismus and refractive errors are the most common vision disorders in children. Although different studies suggest that preschool vision screening is associated with a reduced prevalence rate of amblyopia, the value of these programmes is the subject of a continuing scientific and health policy discussion. Therefore, this systematic review focuses on the question of whether screening for amblyopia in children up to the age of six years leads to better vision outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten bibliographic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and cohort studies with no limitations to a specific year of publication and language. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the bibliographies of included studies and reviews to identify articles not captured through our main search strategy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, three studies suggested that screening is associated with an absolute reduction in the prevalence of amblyopia between 0.9% and 1.6% (relative reduction: between 45% and 62%). However, the studies showed weaknesses, limiting the validity and reliability of their findings. The main limitation was that studies with significant results considered only a proportion of the originally recruited children in their analysis. On the other hand, retrospective sample size calculation indicated that the power based on the cohort size was not sufficient to detect small changes between the groups. Outcome parameters such as quality of life or adverse effects of screening have not been adequately investigated in the literature currently available.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Population based preschool vision screening programmes cannot be sufficiently assessed by the literature currently available. However, it is most likely that the present systematic review contains the most detailed description of the main limitations in current available literature evaluating these programmes. Therefore, future research work should be guided by the findings of this publication.</p

Interventions for convergence insufficiency: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Convergence insufficiency is a common binocular vision disorder in which the eyes have a strong tendency to drift outward (exophoria) with difficulty turning the eyes inward when reading or doing close work. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and relative ranking of non-surgical interventions for convergence insufficiency through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and three trials registers up to 20 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining any form of non-surgical intervention versus placebo, no treatment, sham treatment, or other non-surgical interventions. Participants were children and adults with symptomatic convergence insufficiency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We performed NMAs separately for children and adults. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials (six in children and six in adults) with a total of 1289 participants. Trials evaluated seven interventions: 1) office‐based vergence/accommodative therapy with home reinforcement; 2) home‐based pencil/target push‐ups; 3) home‐based computer vergence/accommodative therapy; 4) office‐based vergence/accommodative therapy alone; 5) placebo vergence/accommodative therapy or other placebo intervention; 6) prism reading glasses; and 7) placebo reading glasses. Six RCTs in the pediatric population randomized 968 participants. Of these, the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial (CITT) Investigator Group completed four RCTs with 737 participants. All four CITT RCTs were rated at low risk of bias. Diagnostic criteria and outcome measures were identical or similar among these trials. The four CITT RCTs contributed data to the pediatric NMA, incorporating interventions 1, 2, 3 and 5. When treatment success was defined by a composite outcome requiring both clinical measures of convergence to be normal, and also show a pre‐specified magnitude of improvement, we found high‐certainty evidence that office‐based vergence/accommodative therapy with home reinforcement increases the chance of a successful outcome, compared with home‐based computer vergence/accommodative therapy (risk ratio (RR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 2.94), home‐based pencil/target push‐ups (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.82 to 4.35); and placebo (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.32 to 3.98). However, there may be no evidence of any treatment difference between home‐based computer vergence/accommodative therapy and home‐based pencil/target push‐ups (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.24; low‐certainty evidence), or between either of the two home‐based therapies and placebo therapy, for the outcome of treatment success. When treatment success was defined as the composite convergence and symptom success outcome, we found moderate‐certainty evidence that participants who received office‐based vergence/accommodative therapy with home reinforcement were 5.12 (95% CI 2.01 to 13.07) times more likely to achieve treatment success than those who received placebo therapy. We found low‐certainty evidence that participants who received office‐based vergence/accommodative therapy with home reinforcement might be 4.41 (95% CI 1.26 to 15.38) times more likely to achieve treatment success than those who received home‐based pencil push‐ups, and 4.65 (95% CI 1.23 to 17.54) times more likely than those who received home‐based computer vergence/accommodative therapy. There was no evidence of any treatment difference between home‐based pencil push‐ups and home‐based computer vergence/accommodative therapy, or between either of the two home‐based therapies and placebo therapy. One RCT evaluated the effectiveness of base‐in prism reading glasses in children. When base‐in prism reading glasses were compared with placebo reading glasses, investigators found no evidence of a difference in the three outcome measures of near point convergence (NPC), positive fusional vergence (PFV), or symptom scores measured by the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS). Six RCTs in the adult population randomized 321 participants. We rated only one RCT at low risk of bias. Because not all studies of adults included composite success data, we could not conduct NMAs for treatment success. We thus were limited to comparing the mean difference (MD) between interventions for improving NPC, PFV, and CISS scores individually using data from three RCTs (107 participants; interventions 1, 2, 4 and 5). Compared with placebo treatment, office‐based vergence accommodative therapy was relatively more effective in improving PFV (MD 16.73, 95% CI 6.96 to 26.60), but there was no evidence of a difference for NPC or the CISS score. There was no evidence of difference for any other comparisons for any outcomes. One trial evaluated base‐in prism glasses prescribed for near‐work activities and found that the prism glasses group had fewer symptoms compared with the placebo glasses group at three months (MD ‐8.9, 95% CI ‐11.6 to ‐6.3). The trial found no evidence of a difference with this intervention in NPC or PFV. No adverse effects related to study treatments were reported for any of the included studies. Excellent adherence was reported for office‐based vergence/accommodative therapy (96.6% or higher) in two trials. Reported adherence with home‐based therapy was less consistent, with one study reporting decreasing adherence over time (weeks 7 to 12) and lower completion rates with home‐based pencil/target push‐ups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current research suggests that office-based vergence/accommodative therapy with home reinforcement is more effective than home-based pencil/target push-ups or home-based computer vergence/accommodative therapy for children. In adults, evidence of the effectiveness of various non-surgical interventions is less clear