International ophthalmology · 2021
Side effects of topical atropine 0.05% compared to 0.01% for myopia control in German school children: a pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Joachimsen Lutz, Farassat Navid, Bleul Tim, Böhringer Daniel, Lagrèze Wolf A, Reich Michael
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Based on findings of the Asian low-concentration atropine for myopia progression study, a concentration of 0.05% has been proposed as a good compromise between safety and efficacy for myopia control. However, no data on side effects have been published so far in Caucasian children receiving this dose.
METHODS: Prior to commencement of bilateral atropine treatment with 0.05% atropine, 19 myopic children aged 5 to 15 years were treated in only one eye at bedtime leaving the other eye as a control. Pupil size, accommodation amplitude and near visual acuity were measured at 10:00 a.m. the next day and compared to the untreated contralateral control eye. The results were then compared to a cohort of 18 children whose treatment with 0.01% atropine commenced in a similar fashion.
RESULTS: Twelve children (63%) reported visual impairment or reading difficulties. Anisocoria was 2.9 ± 1.1 mm. In comparison, 0.01% atropine led to a significantly less anisocoria of 0.8 ± 0.7 mm (p < 0.0001). Accommodation was decreased by - 4.2 ± 3.8 D in 0.05% atropine treated eyes, whereas 0.01% atropine induced hypoaccommodation of - 0.05 ± 2.5 D (p < 0.01). Near visual acuity was not significantly reduced in eyes treated with 0.05% atropine compared to 0.01% atropine (p = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: Compared to 0.01%, our data indicate stronger more relevant side effects of 0.05% topical atropine in young Caucasian children with progressive myopia as recently reported in Asian children, potentially compromising acceptance and compliance.
METHODS: Prior to commencement of bilateral atropine treatment with 0.05% atropine, 19 myopic children aged 5 to 15 years were treated in only one eye at bedtime leaving the other eye as a control. Pupil size, accommodation amplitude and near visual acuity were measured at 10:00 a.m. the next day and compared to the untreated contralateral control eye. The results were then compared to a cohort of 18 children whose treatment with 0.01% atropine commenced in a similar fashion.
RESULTS: Twelve children (63%) reported visual impairment or reading difficulties. Anisocoria was 2.9 ± 1.1 mm. In comparison, 0.01% atropine led to a significantly less anisocoria of 0.8 ± 0.7 mm (p < 0.0001). Accommodation was decreased by - 4.2 ± 3.8 D in 0.05% atropine treated eyes, whereas 0.01% atropine induced hypoaccommodation of - 0.05 ± 2.5 D (p < 0.01). Near visual acuity was not significantly reduced in eyes treated with 0.05% atropine compared to 0.01% atropine (p = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: Compared to 0.01%, our data indicate stronger more relevant side effects of 0.05% topical atropine in young Caucasian children with progressive myopia as recently reported in Asian children, potentially compromising acceptance and compliance.