Atropine penalisation versus occlusion as the primary treatment for amblyopia. A randomized trial to evaluate 2 hours of daily patching for strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia in children. A randomized pilot study of near activities versus non-near activities during patching therapy for amblyopia.
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 2 hours of daily patching (combined with 1 hour of concurrent near visual activities) with a control group of spectacle wear alone (if needed) for treatment of moderate to severe amblyopia in children 3 to 7 years old.
                Prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial (46 sites).
                One hundred eighty children 3 to 7 years old with best-corrected amblyopic-eye visual acuity (VA) of 20/40 to 20/400 associated with strabismus, anisometropia, or both who had worn optimal refractive correction (if needed) for at least 16 weeks or for 2 consecutive visits without improvement.
                Randomization either to 2 hours of daily patching with 1 hour of near visual activities or to spectacles alone (if needed). Patients were continued on the randomized treatment (or no treatment) until no further improvement was noted.
                Best-corrected VA in the amblyopic eye after 5 weeks.
                Improvement in VA of the amblyopic eye from baseline to 5 weeks averaged 1.1 lines in the patching group and 0.5 lines in the control group (P = 0.006), and improvement from baseline to best measured VA at any visit averaged 2.2 lines in the patching group and 1.3 lines in the control group (P<0.001).
                After a period of treatment with spectacles, 2 hours of daily patching combined with 1 hour of near visual activities modestly improves moderate to severe amblyopia in children 3 to 7 years old. To plan a future randomized clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to determine whether children randomized to near or non-near activities would perform prescribed activities. A secondary aim was to obtain a preliminary estimate of the effect of near versus non-near activities on amblyopic eye visual acuity, when combined with 2 hours of daily patching.
                Sixty-four children, 3 to less than 7 years of age, with anisometropic, strabismic, or combined amblyopia (20/40 to 20/400) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 hours of daily patching with near activities or 2 hours of daily patching without near activities. Parents completed daily calendars for 4 weeks recording the activities performed while patched and received a weekly telephone call in which they were asked to describe the activities performed during the previous 2 hours of patching. Visual acuity was assessed at 4 weeks.
                The children assigned to near visual activities performed more near activities than those assigned to non-near activities (by calendars, mean 1.6 +/- 0.5 hours versus 0.2 +/- 0.2 hours daily, P < 0.001; by telephone interviews, 1.6 +/- 0.4 hours versus 0.4 +/- 0.5 hours daily, P < 0.001). After 4 weeks of treatment, there was a suggestion of greater improvement in amblyopic eye visual acuity in those assigned to near visual activities (mean 2.6 lines versus 1.6 lines, P = 0.07). The treatment group difference in visual acuity was present for patients with severe amblyopia but not moderate amblyopia.
                Children patched and instructed to perform near activities for amblyopia spent more time performing those near activities than children who were instructed to perform non-near activities. Our results suggest that performing near activities while patched may be beneficial in treating amblyopia. Based on our data, a formal randomized amblyopia treatment trial of patching with and without near activities is both feasible and desirable.
Occlusion, whilst wearing necessary refractive correction, appears to be more effective than refractive correction alone in the treatment of strabismic amblyopia. The benefit of combining near activities with occlusion is unproven. No RCTs were found that assessed the role of either partial occlusion or optical penalisation to refractive correction for strabismic amblyopia.