Efficacy and safety of atropine to control myopia progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
Methods: This work was done through the data searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The Cochrane Handbook was also used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. In addition, a meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.3 software.
Results: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Myopia progression was mitigated greater in the atropine treatment group than that in the control group, with MD?=?-?0.80, 95% CI (-?0.94, -?0.66) during the whole observation period. There was a statistical difference among 0.05, 0.5, and 1.0% atropine (P?=?0.004). In addition, less axial elongation was shown, with MD?=?-?0.26, 95% CI (-?0.33, -?0.18) during the whole observation period.
Conclusion: The effectiveness of atropine in controlling the progression of myopia was dose related. A 0.05% atropine was likely to be the optimal dose.
SUBMITTER: Zhao C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720573 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy and safety of atropine to control myopia progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhao Congling C Cai Chunyan C Ding Qiang Q Dai Hongbin H
BMC ophthalmology 20201207 1
<h4>Background</h4>The effect and safety of atropine on delaying the progression of myopia has been extensively studied, but its optimal dose is still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of atropine in controlling the progression of myopia, and to explore the relationship between the dose of atropine and the effectiveness of controlling the progression of myopia.<h4>Methods</h4>This work was done through the data search ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of consecutive use of 1% and 0.01% atropine compared with 0.01% atropine alone over 1 year.MethodsA total of 207 participants aged 6-12 years with myopia of - 0.50 to - 6.00 D in both eyes were enrolled in this randomized, controlled, non-masked trial and randomly assigned (1:1) to groups A and B. Group A received 1% atropine weekly and were tapered to 0.01% atropine daily at the 6-month visit, and group B received 0.01% atropine daily for 1 year.ResultsOf the 207 participants, 109 were female (52.7%) and the mean (± standard deviation) age was 8.92 ± 1.61 years. Ninety-one participants (87.5%) in group A and 80 participants (77.7%) in group B completed the 1-year treatment. Group A exhibited less refraction progression (- 0.53 ± 0.49 D vs. - 0.74 ± 0.52 D; P = 0.01) and axial elongation (0.26 ± 0.17 mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.21 mm; P < 0.001) over 1 year compared with group B. The changes in refraction (- 0.82 ± 0.45 D vs. - 0.46 ± 0.35 D; P < 0.001) and axial length (0.29 ± 0.12 mm vs. 0.17 ± 0.11 mm; P < 0.001) during the second 6 months in group A were greater than those in group B, with 72.5% of participants presenting refraction rebound. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionsThe 1-year results preliminarily suggest that consecutive use of 1% and 0.01% atropine confers an overall better effect in slowing myopia progression than 0.01% atropine alone, despite myopia rebound after the concentration switch. Both regimens were well tolerated. The long-term efficacy and rebound after the concentration switch and regimen optimization warrant future studies to determine.Trial registration numberClinical Trials.gov PRS (Registration No. NCT03949101).
| S-EPMC9521881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSome uncertainty about the clinical value and dosing of atropine for the treatment of myopia in children remains.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy vs the adverse effects of various doses of atropine in the therapy for myopia in children.Data sourcesData were obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to April 30, 2016. The reference lists of published reviews and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for additional relevant studies. Key search terms included myopia, refractive errors, and atropine. Only studies published in English were included.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials and cohort studies that enrolled patients younger than 18 years with myopia who received atropine in at least 1 treatment arm and that reported the annual rate of myopia progression and/or any adverse effects of atropine therapy were included in the analysis.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently abstracted the data. Heterogeneity was statistically quantified by Q, H, and I2 statistics, and a meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration 6 aspects of bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk for bias.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a difference in efficacy and the presence of adverse effects at different doses of atropine vs control conditions. The secondary outcomes included the differences in adverse effects between Asian and white patients.ResultsNineteen unique studies involving 3137 unique children were included in the analysis. The weighted mean differences between the atropine and control groups in myopia progression were 0.50 diopters (D) per year (95% CI, 0.24-0.76 D per year) for low-dose atropine, 0.57 D per year (95% CI, 0.43-0.71 D per year) for moderate-dose atropine, and 0.62 D per year (95% CI, 0.45-0.79 D per year) for high-dose atropine (P < .001), which translated to a high effect size (Cohen d, 0.97, 1.76, and 1.94, respectively). All doses of atropine, therefore, were equally beneficial with respect to myopia progression (P = .15). High-dose atropine were associated with more adverse effects, such as the 43.1% incidence of photophobia compared with 6.3% for low-dose atropine and 17.8% for moderate-dose atropine (χ22 = 7.05; P = .03). In addition, differences in the incidence of adverse effects between Asian and white patients were not identified (χ21 = 0.81; P = .37 for photophobia).Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis suggests that the efficacy of atropine is dose independent within this range, whereas the adverse effects are dose dependent.
| S-EPMC5710262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the rebound effects and safety of atropine on accommodation amplitude in slowing myopia progression.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis to testify proper dosage of atropine in children with myopia. We searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library up to March 30, 2021. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of atropine for controlling myopia progression in children. We performed the inverse variance random-effects model to pool the data using mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.ResultsSeventeen RCTs involving 2955 participants were included. Myopia progression was significantly less in the atropine group than that of the control group, with MD = 0.38 D per year (95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.56). Less axial elongation was shown with MD = -0.19 mm per year (95% CI, -0.25 to -0.12). There was a statistically difference among various doses (p=0.00001). In addition, 1.0% atropine showed the rebound effect with MD = -0.54 D per year (95% CI, -0.81 to -0.26) and was more effective in the latter six months than in the former one. Less accommodation amplitude was shown in 0.01% atropine.ConclusionThe efficacy of atropine is dose dependent, and 0.01% atropine may be the optimal dose in slowing myopia progression in children with no accommodation dysfunction. A rebound effect is more prominent in high-dose atropine in the former cessation after discontinuation.
| S-EPMC8683246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMyopia is a common visual disorder with increasing prevalence. Halting progression of myopia is critical, as high myopia can be complicated by a number of vision-compromising conditions.MethodsLiterature search was conducted in the following databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the efficacy and safety of multiple myopia interventions vs control conditions, were considered. Methodological quality and quality of evidence of eligible studies were assessed using the ROBIS tool and GRADE rating. The degree of overlapping of index publications in the eligible reviews was calculated with the corrected covered area (CCA).ResultsForty-four unique primary studies contained in 18 eligible reviews and involving 6400 children were included in the analysis. CCA was estimated as 6.2% and thus considered moderate. Results demonstrated the superior efficacy of atropine eyedrops; 1% atropine vs placebo (change in refraction: -0.78D, [- 1.30 to - 0.25] in 1 year), 0.025 to 0.05% atropine vs control (change in refraction: -0.51D, [- 0.60 to - 0.41] in 1 year), 0.01% atropine vs control (change in refraction: -0.50D, [- 0.76 to - 0.24] in 1 year). Atropine was followed by orthokeratology (axial elongation: - 0.19 mm, [- 0.21 to - 0.16] in 1 year) and novel multifocal soft contact lenses (change in refraction: -0.15D, [- 0.27 to - 0.03] in 1 year). As regards adverse events, 1% atropine induced blurred near vision (odds ratio [OR] 9.47, [1.17 to 76.78]) and hypersensitivity reactions (OR 8.91, [1.04 to 76.03]).ConclusionsExisting evidence has failed to convince doctors to uniformly embrace treatments for myopic progression control, possibly due to existence of some heterogeneity, reporting of side effects and lack of long-term follow-up. Research geared towards efficient interventions is still necessary.
| S-EPMC6506938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.01% atropine alone and in combination with orthokeratology for myopia control using a meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched. We included eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and retrospective cohort studies, published up to August 1, 2022. We calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all outcomes and plotted them in forest plots.ResultsFourteen studies were included; 4 and 11 in the 0.01% atropine monotherapy and atropine-orthokeratology (AOK) groups, respectively. Compared with orthokeratology (OK) alone, 0.01% atropine alone had similar effects on slowing the axial elongation (WMD: -0.00 mm; 95% CI: -0.05-0.04, p<0.31), while AOK significantly lowered axial growth. Moreover, the baseline myopic degree and duration of treatment were influential for the change in axial elongation (WMD: -0.12 mm; 95% CI: -0.17--0.07, p = 0.00001 and WMD: -0.11 mm; 95% CI: -0.15--0.108, p<0.00001, respectively). Additionally, the AOK may reduce the change rate of the spherical equivalent refraction and the accommodation amplitude (WMD: -0.13 D; 95% CI: 0.07-0.19, p<0.001 and WMD: -1.08 mm; 95% CI: -1.73--0.43, p<0.0001, respectively), and cause a slight increase in the diameter of the pupil (WMD: 0.56 mm; 95% CI: 0.43-0.70, p = 0.007). No significant differences in the uncorrected distant visual acuity, best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, tear film break-up time, lipid layer thickness, and corneal endothelial cell density were found between the OK and AOK groups.ConclusionIn slowing the axial elongation, 0.01% atropine alone and OK alone have similar effects, while AOK is more effective than OK alone in slowing down the axial elongation. Furthermore, the baseline degree of myopia and treatment duration may affect changes in axial elongation.
| S-EPMC10370708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical treatment effects of orthokeratology to slow the progression of myopia.MethodsSeveral well-designed controlled studies have investigated the effects of orthokeratology in school-aged children. We conducted this meta-analysis to better evaluate the existing evidence. Relevant studies were identified in the Medline and Embase database without language limitations. The main outcomes included axial length and vitreous chamber depth reported as the mean ± standard deviation. The results were pooled and assessed with a fixed-effects model analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed according to geographical location and study design.ResultsOf the seven eligible studies, all reported axial length changes after 2 years, while two studies reported vitreous chamber depth changes. The pooled estimates indicated that change in axial length in the ortho-k group was 0.27 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22, 0.32) less than the control group. Myopic progression was reduced by approximately 45%. The combined results revealed that the difference in vitreous chamber depth between the two groups was 0.22 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.31). None of the studies reported severe adverse events.ConclusionThe overall findings suggest that ortho-k can slow myopia progression in school-aged children.
| S-EPMC4391793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative, as compared with conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy for treating achalasia patients. In the last years, a number of prospective and retrospective experiences with POEM use for achalasia have been published. METHODS: Relevant publications in which patients affected by achalasia underwent POEM treatment were identified by PubMed databases for the period 2010 - 2013. From each study, we extracted the number and type of major complications (defined as those requiring any additional medical or surgical intervention). Data were pooled, using random-effects models. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by using Cochran's Q and the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: We found 16 studies that provided data on 551 patients. The median surveillance period was 6 months (range: 3-12). The median of mean POEM duration was 156 minutes (range: 42-112). Median myotomy length was 10?cm (range: 6-14). Technical and clinical success were reported in 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) and 93% (407/428; 95% CI: 90-95%). No heterogeneity (I (2?)=?0%) or publication bias was present in both estimates. When limiting the analysis only to adverse events that require medical or surgical interventions, major adverse events occurred in 14% (95% CI: 11-17%); however, only one patient needed post-POEM surgery (0.2%; 95% CI: 0-0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: POEM appeared to be a highly feasible and effective endoscopic treatment for achalasia. Despite POEM being apparently associated with relatively high morbidity, most patients are successfully managed conservatively, so that POEM appears as a very safe procedure; however, POEM should only be performed in centers able to treat POEM complications, such as pneumothorax or pneumoperitoneum.
| S-EPMC4528214 | biostudies-other
Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.
| S-EPMC2764163 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceBecause studies have suggested that atropine might slow the progression of myopia in children, randomized clinical trials are warranted to understand this potential causal relationship.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of atropine, 0.01%, eyedrops on slowing myopia progression and axial elongation in Chinese children.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked study. A total of 220 children aged 6 to 12 years with myopia of -1.00 D to -6.00 D in both eyes were enrolled between April 2018 and July 2018 at Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing, China. Cycloplegic refraction and axial length were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Adverse events were also recorded.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to atropine, 0.01%, or placebo groups to be administered once nightly to both eyes for 1 year.Main outcomes and measuresMean changes and percentage differences in myopia progression and axial elongation between atropine, 0.01%, or placebo groups.ResultsOf 220 participants, 103 were girls (46.8%), and the mean (SD) age was 9.64 (1.68) years. The mean (SD) baseline refractive error and axial length were -2.58 (1.39) D and 24.59 (0.87) mm. Follow-up at 1 year included 76 children (69%) and 83 children (75%) allocated into the atropine, 0.01%, and placebo groups, respectively, when mean myopia progression was -0.49 (0.42) D and -0.76 (0.50) D in the atropine, 0.01%, and placebo groups (mean difference, 0.26 D; 95% CI, 0.12-0.41 D; P < .001), with a relative reduction of 34.2% in myopia progression. The mean (SD) axial elongation in the atropine, 0.01%, group was 0.32 (0.19) mm compared with 0.41 (0.19) mm in the placebo group (mean difference, 0.09 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.15 mm; P = .004), with relative reduction of 22.0% in axial elongation. Fifty-one percent and 13.2% of children progressed by at least 0.50 D and 1.00 D in the atropine, 0.01%, group, compared with 69.9% and 34.9% in the placebo group. No serious adverse events related to atropine were reported.Conclusions and relevanceWhile the clinical relevance of the results cannot be determined from this trial, these 1-year results, limited by approximately 70% follow-up, suggest that atropine, 0.01%, eyedrops can slow myopia progression and axial elongation in children and warrant future studies to determine longer-term results and potential effects on slowing sight-threatening pathologic changes later in life.Trial registrationhttp://www.chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-17013898.
| S-EPMC7530823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe last international consensus on the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommends SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists for patients with clinical cardiovascular (CV) disease; metformin remains the first-line glucose lowering medication. Last studies suggested beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, in secondary CV prevention. Recently, a potential benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in primary CV prevention also has been suggested. However, no comparison of all the new and the old hypoglycemic drugs is available on CV outcomes. We aimed to compare the effects of old and new hypoglycemic drugs in T2D, on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials. Randomized trials, blinded or not, assessing contemporary hypoglycemic drugs on mortality or MACE in patients with T2D, were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. References screening and data extraction were done by multiple observers. Each drug was analyzed according to its therapeutic class. A random Bayesian network meta-analysis model was used. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE. Severe adverse events and severe hypoglycemia were also recorded. 175,966 patients in 34 trials from 1970 to 2018 were included. No trials evaluating glinides or alpha glucosidase inhibitors were found. 17 trials included a majority of patients with previous cardiovascular history, 16 trials a majority of patients without. Compared to control, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.74; 0.95]), SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.89 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.98] and OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.95], respectively). Compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.69; 0.98]), GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.79; 0.99]). Insulin was also associated with an increased risk of MACE compared to GLP-1 agonists (OR = 1.19 [95% CrI: 1.01; 1.42]). Insulin and sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. In the trials including a majority of patients without previous CV history, the comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin and control did not showed significant differences on primary outcomes. We limited our analysis at the therapeutic class level.ConclusionsSGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists have the most beneficial effects, especially in T2D patients with previous CV diseases. Direct comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and metformin are needed, notably in primary CV prevention.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043823.
| S-EPMC6592598 | biostudies-literature