Atropine penalisation versus occlusion as the primary treatment for amblyopia. Comparative efficacy of penalization methods in moderate to mild amblyopia. Randomized trial of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years.
Pharmacological penalisation of non-amblyopic eyes is an infrequently used alternative to occlusion for treating amblyopia. The authors compared the efficacy of atropine penalisation and that of occlusion as a primary treatment for amblyopia.
                Thirty six newly diagnosed patients with amblyopia were allocated to two groups for treatment. Eighteen patients in each group were treated either with atropine penalisation (group A) or occlusion therapy (group P).
                There was a statistically significant improvement in visual acuity in both groups treated. In group A improvement of the geometric mean visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was from 6/50 to 6/11 (p < 0.001). In group P improvement of the geometric mean visual acuity was from 6/60 to 6/19 (p < 0.001). In group A non-compliance with treatment was only 6% (2/18). Non-compliance in group P was 45% (8/18) at some stages of the treatment. Neither group produced an incidence of occlusion amblyopia.
                In this study atropine penalisation has been shown to be as effective as occlusion therapy in the treatment of amblyopia. Patient acceptance of atropine penalisation was superior to that for occlusion therapy as was shown by the compliance rate. Atropine treatment was also advantageous in that compliance could be readily checked by inspection. To compare the efficacy and sensory outcome of pharmacologic and optical penalization in the treatment of moderate to mild amblyopia.
                Randomized clinical trial.
                In an institutional setting, two- to 10-year-old children with strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia (visual acuity in the amblyopic eye at least 20/60) who were cooperative to measure visual acuity using the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) crowded Glasgow acuity cards were randomized into two groups of therapy (n=35 in each group), 1% atropine, and optical penalization with positive lenses, after stratification by cause of amblyopia. Visual acuity was tested by the logMAR crowded Glasgow acuity cards, after retinoscopic refraction, and deviation angle were measured by the simultaneous prism and cover or Krimsky test. Stereoacuity was determined using the Titmus fly test and Randot preschool or Randot circles stereoacuity test. Change in visual acuity of the amblyopic eye and in interocular difference of visual acuity after six months of amblyopia therapy was the main outcome measure; stereoacuity at six months of therapy was a secondary outcome measure.
                Thirty-one and 32 children completed the outcome examination in the atropine and optical penalization group, respectively. Average improvement in visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was larger in the atropine than in the optical penalization group (3.4 and 1.8 logMAR lines, respectively), as well as average improvement in interocular difference of visual acuity (2.8 and 1.3 logMAR lines, respectively). Better stereoacuity, but nonsignificantly different, was detected in the atropine group.
                Atropine penalization may be considered more effective than optical penalization with positive lenses. To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years.
                At 49 clinical sites, 507 patients with amblyopic eye visual acuity ranging from 20/40 to 20/400 were provided with optimal optical correction and then randomized to a treatment group (2-6 hours per day of prescribed patching combined with near visual activities for all patients plus atropine sulfate for children aged 7 to 12 years) or an optical correction group (optical correction alone). Patients whose amblyopic eye acuity improved 10 or more letters (> or =2 lines) by 24 weeks were considered responders.
                In the 7- to 12-year-olds (n = 404), 53% of the treatment group were responders compared with 25% of the optical correction group (P<.001). In the 13- to 17-year-olds (n = 103), the responder rates were 25% and 23%, respectively, overall (adjusted P = .22) but 47% and 20%, respectively, among patients not previously treated with patching and/or atropine for amblyopia (adjusted P = .03). Most patients, including responders, were left with a residual visual acuity deficit.
                Amblyopia improves with optical correction alone in about one fourth of patients aged 7 to 17 years, although most patients who are initially treated with optical correction alone will require additional treatment for amblyopia. For patients aged 7 to 12 years, prescribing 2 to 6 hours per day of patching with near visual activities and atropine can improve visual acuity even if the amblyopia has been previously treated. For patients 13 to 17 years, prescribing patching 2 to 6 hours per day with near visual activities may improve visual acuity when amblyopia has not been previously treated but appears to be of little benefit if amblyopia was previously treated with patching. We do not yet know whether visual acuity improvement will be sustained once treatment is discontinued; therefore, conclusions regarding the long-term benefit of treatment and the development of treatment recommendations for amblyopia in children 7 years and older await the results of a follow-up study we are conducting on the patients who responded to treatment.
Both conventional occlusion and atropine penalization produce visual acuity improvement in the amblyopic eye. Atropine penalization appears to be as effective as conventional occlusion, although the magnitude of improvement differed among the three trials. Atropine penalization can be used as first line treatment for amblyopia.