0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Small Case Series |

Atropine Penalization for “Rescuing” Patching Failures FREE

John W. Simon, MD; Harita Baxi, BA
[+] Author Affiliations

Section Editor: W. Richard Green, MD

More Author Information
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(2):219-221. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2008.560.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

The prospective, multicenter Amblyopia Treatment Study I, performed under the direction of the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, demonstrated that atropine penalization of children with moderate amblyopia yielded improvement similar to that obtained with patching.1Among 419 children with visual acuities ranging from 20/40 to 20/100, the mean improvement after 6 months of treatment was 3.16 lines for children treated with occlusion, statistically indistinguishable from the 2.84 lines of improvement for children treated with atropine sulfate. Similar results were noted in the same patients after 2 years.2

Some have raised methodologic concerns and have noted that patching, if enforced consistently, brought even better improvement in other series.3,4We agree that atropine penalization is unsuccessful in many children. However, we have identified 5 children in whom, despite apparent adherence to treatment, repeated and prolonged attempts at intensive occlusion failed and yet the children subsequently achieved substantial improvement with atropine penalization. Atropine “rescue” of patching failures has not been previously reported, to our knowledge. This study, based exclusively on existing clinical data, was approved by the Albany Medical Center's institutional review board as an exempt study.

REPORT OF CASES

Case 1

A 5-year-old girl with a left esotropia had a visual acuity of 20/25 OD and 20/60 OS. Patching of the right eye was begun for all but 2 hours daily. After 7 months of occlusion, the visual acuity had improved to 20/40 OS. We substituted 1% atropine penalization of the right eye for the patch, yielding an improvement to 20/25 after 2 months.

Case 2

A 3-year-old boy with Sturge-Weber glaucoma in the right eye developed anisometropic amblyopia in his left eye despite spectacle correction containing his cycloplegic refraction of plano OD and −3.00 OS. He later developed a left esotropia, for which a recession-resection procedure was performed at age 7 years. Half-time occlusion of the right eye was begun at age 3 years, when his visual acuity measured 20/20 OD and 20/80 OS. After 18 months, the visual acuity in the left eye had not improved. We substituted 1% atropine penalization of the right eye for the patch. After 8 months, his visual acuity had improved to 20/30 OS.

Case 3

A 3-year-old girl was noted on routine examination to have an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/25 OD and 4/100 OS, and cycloplegic refraction yielded plano OD and +4.00 OS. Treatment with glasses and half-time occlusion of the right eye was prescribed. After 14 months, her visual acuity measured 20/50 OS. We substituted 1% atropine penalization of the right eye for the patch. After 5 months, her visual acuity had improved to 20/25 OS.

Case 4

A 5-year-old girl with a small, newly diagnosed posterior lenticonus cataract in the left eye had a visual acuity of 20/25 OD and 20/80 OS through a cycloplegic refraction of +1.00 OD and +3.25 OS. Glasses and half-time patching of the right eye yielded improvement only to 20/70 after 6 months. We substituted 1% atropine penalization of the right eye for the patch. After 4 months, her visual acuity had improved to 20/50 OS.

Case 5

A 5-year-old girl who had undergone recession-resection surgery for a partially accommodative left esotropia at age 2 years had a visual acuity of 20/20 OD and 20/70 OS. Half-time occlusion of the right eye for 12 months improved the visual acuity to 20/30 OS. We substituted 1% atropine penalization of the right eye for the patch. After 4 months, visual acuity had improved to 20/20 OS.

COMMENT

The children we describe had improvement in their amblyopia with daily 1% atropine penalization after patching had been, at best, only partly successful. All parents claimed good adherence to both recommended treatments. None of the children experienced loss of visual acuity in the dominant eye after either occlusion or atropine therapy. Strabismic, anisometropic, and occlusion amblyopia were all included.

Much discussion has focused on the possibility that patching is a superior treatment, probably faster than penalization and more precise in its titration.1,5Although we generally prefer patching as initial treatment, we believe that atropine therapy represents a welcome alternative in certain circumstances. It has been demonstrated to be easier for many children to tolerate.1It may enhance adherence to hyperopic spectacle correction and may be particularly effective when combined with a decrease in the lens power for the dominant eye.5

We elected to change from patching to atropine in these cases rather than to increase the patching time because patching had become both nonproductive and burdensome for the children despite optical correction, which we refined as clinically indicated at regular intervals. Stewart and associates6demonstrated that prescribing more intensive patching is not likely to bring further improvement.

We measured all visual acuities with standard Snellen lines before and after patching and atropine penalization. We did not note any evidence of age-related improvements in testability. No improvement greater than 1 line was documented in the dominant eye during the period of either patching or atropine penalization.

We recognize that, in this retrospective case series, we have no way to gauge accurately how well the patients had adhered to patching. However, it would appear that some children in whom patching fails may achieve successful amblyopia treatment with penalization. We believe atropine should be considered in selected cases before treatment is abandoned.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Correspondence: Dr Simon, Department of Ophthalmology, Lions Eye Institute, 1220 New Scotland Rd, Albany, NY 12159 (SimonJ@mail.amc.edu).

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

REFERENCES

Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, A randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120 (3) 268- 278
PubMed Link to Article
Repka  MXWallace  DKBeck  RW  et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Two-year follow-up of a 6-month randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (2) 149- 157
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  WEKutschke  PJKeech  RVPfeifer  WLNichols  BZhang  L Amblyopia treatment outcomes. J AAPOS 2005;9 (2) 107- 111
PubMed Link to Article
Kushner  BJ Concern about the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group 2-year follow-up study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (11) 1615- 1616
PubMed Link to Article
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, A comparison of atropine and patching treatments for moderate amblyopia by patient age, cause of amblyopia, depth of amblyopia, and other factors. Ophthalmology 2003;110 (8) 1632- 1638
PubMed Link to Article
Stewart  CEStephens  DAFielder  ARMoseley  MJROTAS Cooperative, Objectively monitored patching regimens for treatment of amblyopia: randomized trial. BMJ 2007;335 (7622) 707
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Tables

References

Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, A randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120 (3) 268- 278
PubMed Link to Article
Repka  MXWallace  DKBeck  RW  et al. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Two-year follow-up of a 6-month randomized trial of atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (2) 149- 157
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  WEKutschke  PJKeech  RVPfeifer  WLNichols  BZhang  L Amblyopia treatment outcomes. J AAPOS 2005;9 (2) 107- 111
PubMed Link to Article
Kushner  BJ Concern about the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group 2-year follow-up study. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (11) 1615- 1616
PubMed Link to Article
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, A comparison of atropine and patching treatments for moderate amblyopia by patient age, cause of amblyopia, depth of amblyopia, and other factors. Ophthalmology 2003;110 (8) 1632- 1638
PubMed Link to Article
Stewart  CEStephens  DAFielder  ARMoseley  MJROTAS Cooperative, Objectively monitored patching regimens for treatment of amblyopia: randomized trial. BMJ 2007;335 (7622) 707
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

530 Views
6 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs