• About Us
  • Privacy
  • Contact Us

Contact Lens Update

Clinical Insights Based in Current Research

Search Our Site

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Conference Highlights

Atropine for myopia progression: high dose vs low dose in a real-world setting

September 25th, 2020

JR Polling and team reported on the one-year results of their study investigating the effect of different strengths of atropine on refraction and axial length. Their results, presented virtually at ARVO, 2020, provide further evidence of the dose-dependent response of this form of treatment.

Jan Roelof (JR) Polling; Emily Tan; Willem Tideman; Caroline Klaver. Atropine for myopia progression: high dose vs low dose in a real-world setting. Invest Ophthalmol & Vis Sci June 2020, Vol.61, 1134

Abstract

Purpose: Many eye care providers prefer low dose atropine (0.01%) over high dose (0.5% or 1%) for myopia control because of the lower risk of side effects. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this concentration on reduction of axial length progression has not been proven. This study explores the one year effectiveness of high versus low dose atropine on spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) progression in a myopia control clinic.

Methods: Study participants were derived from the Erasmus MC Myopia Control Clinic, and consisted of children aged 6-13 years with bilateral progressive myopia and a SER of -0.5D to -6.0 using 0.5% or 0.01% atropine for myopia control at baseline. Children with syndromic myopia were excluded. SER and AL were measured at 6 months and 1 year, and progression was calculated. Baseline and progression of SER and AL were compared between treatment regimens with the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: At baseline, 128 children (mean age 9.2±1.7) with 0.5% and 37 children (mean age 10.0±1.9) with 0.01% atropine started treatment. (p=0.51) Ethnicity was predominately white (68%) and only 9% of the study population was from East Asian descent. Median SER was -4.19D (IQR 1.7) for atropine 0.5% and -3.75D (IQR 2.7) for atropine 0.01% (p=0.04); median AL’s were 24.66 (IQR 1.13) and 24.59mm (IQR 0.73), respectively (p=0.14). At 6 months, 9/128 children (7%) who were on atropine 0.5%, and 2/37 children (5%) who were on atropine 0.01% stopped therapy. At one year, another 2 children had stopped therapy in the 0.5% group.(p= 0.53) At 6 months, median SER and AL progression was +0.19D and 0.00mm, respectively, for atropine 0.5% , and -0.03D and 0.15mm for 0.01%. (p<0.001; p<0.001) At 12 months, median SER and AL progression was +0.12D and 0.07mm, respectively, for atropine 0.5%; -0.25D and 0.19mm for 0.01%. (p=0.01; p=0.05)

Conclusions: One year progression of SER and AL was more in favor of high dose atropine (0.5%) than low dose (0.01%). Dropout rates were somewhat higher at high dose, but the vast majority managed to adhere to this therapy. High dose atropine should have a place in myopia control when strict control is needed to lower the risk of progression to high myopia.

Related Articles

  • September 25, 2020

    BLINK: Don’t Miss It

  • September 25, 2020

    Is a dose-dependent response common among a number of myopia control treatments?

  • September 25, 2020

    Atropine for myopia progression: high dose vs low dose in a real-world setting

  • September 25, 2020

    How to choose myopia management interventions for the child in your chair

Issues

  • In-Office Procedures for Dry Eye
  • Multifocal Contact Lenses
  • Artificial Tears: An Update
  • Myopia: New Evidence and Best Practices
  • Neuropathic Pain
  • Specialty Rigid Lenses
  • Contact lens compliance
  • Pandemic update
  • Digital Devices and Dry Eye: A Growing Issue
  • The long and short of axial length
  • Using BCLA CLEAR with your patients
  • Helping your patients through allergy season
  • Getting the measure of meibomian glands
  • 2020: An extraordinary year
  • Scleral lens update
  • A dose of myopia
  • New news since TFOS DEWS II
  • COVID-19 Special Edition
  • Material considerations
  • Putting dry eye theory into practice
  • Getting started with Ortho-K
  • Infiltrates – an update
  • Staining
  • Myopia matters: Summarising the IMI reports
  • Lids and contact lenses
  • Myths
  • Revisiting patient compliance
  • Contact Lenses & Kids
  • Interprofessional Collaboration
  • Digital eye strain
  • New Dry Eye Technology
  • Update on Presbyopia
  • Taking stock of dry eye disease: DEWS II
  • Scleral Lenses
  • Pain and Sensation
  • Lab measurements in clinical practice
  • Control of pediatric myopia
  • Nutrition
  • Rethinking contact lens deposits
  • Extended wear
  • Daily Disposables
  • Eyelash Mites (Demodex)
  • Outsmarting bacteria with new technology
  • Youth and contact lenses
  • Sports Vision
  • Ocular effects of UV radiation from the sun
  • Eyelid Conditions
  • Makeup: Impact on ocular health
  • Myopia Control – Update 2014
  • The Growing Prevalence of Myopia
  • Cosmetic contact lenses
  • Contact lens discomfort – The essentials
  • Technology and contact lens research
  • It's A Question of Comfort
  • Contact lens materials
  • Let's talk about SICS
  • Conjunctival Controversies
  • Kids & Contact Lenses
  • One-day silicone hydrogel lenses
  • Solutions
  • Spotlight on Scleral lenses
  • Drug delivery via contact lenses
  • Ocular allergies
  • Reducing lens case contamination
  • Dry eye and meibomium gland dysfunction
  • Myopia Control
  • Presbyopia
  • Compliance and non-compliance
  • Lens care
  • Celebrating 50 years of contact lenses

Looking for another article?

Alcon coopervision Johnson&Johnson Vision Care

Newsletter Sign-Up

Sign-up for and start receiving our newsletter.

Site Map

  • Home
  • Browse Past Issues
    • Editorial
    • Feature Article
    • Clinical Insight
    • Conference Highlights
  • Resource Library
  • Back to Basics
  • Useful Links
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
© 2023 Contact Lens Update