Cynthia L. Beauchamp

Binocular iPad Game vs Patching for Treatment of Amblyopia in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Fellow eye patching has long been the standard treatment for amblyopia, but it does not always restore 20/20 vision or teach the eyes to work together. Amblyopia can be treated with binocular games that rebalance contrast between the eyes so that a child may overcome suppression. However, it is unclear whether binocular treatment is comparable to patching in treating amblyopia. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of a binocular iPad (Apple Inc) adventure game as amblyopia treatment and compare this binocular treatment with patching, the current standard of care. Design, Setting, and Participants This investigation was a randomized clinical trial with a crossover design at a nonprofit eye research institute. Between February 20, 2015, and January 4, 2016, a total of 28 patients were enrolled in the study, with 14 randomized to binocular game treatment and 14 to patching treatment. Interventions Binocular game and patching as amblyopia treatments. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was change in amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the 2-week visit. Secondary outcomes were change in stereoacuity and suppression at the 2-week visit and change in BCVA at the 4-week visit. Results Among 28 children, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 6.7 (1.4) years (age range, 4.6-9.5 years), and 7 (25%) were female. At baseline, the mean (SD) amblyopic eye BCVA was 0.48 (0.14) logMAR (approximately 20/63; range, 0.3-0.8 logMAR [20/40 to 20/125]), with 14 children randomized to the binocular game and 14 to patching for 2 weeks. At the 2-week visit, improvement in amblyopic eye BCVA was greater with the binocular game compared with patching, with a mean (SD) improvement of 0.15 (0.08) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.5 [0.8] lines) vs 0.07 (0.08) logMAR (mean [SD], 0.7 [0.8] line; P = .02) after 2 weeks of treatment. These improvements from baseline were significant for the binocular game (mean [SD] improvement, 1.5 [0.8] lines; P < .001) and for patching (mean [SD] improvement, 0.7 [0.8] line; P = .006). Depth of suppression improved from baseline at the 2-week visit for the binocular game (mean [SD], 4.82 [2.82] vs 3.24 [2.87]; P = .03) and for patching (mean [SD], 4.77 [3.10] vs 2.57 [1.67]; P = .004). Patching children crossed over to binocular game treatment, and all 28 children played the game for another 2 weeks. At the 4-week visit, no group difference was found in BCVA change, with children who crossed over to the binocular games catching up with children treated with binocular games, for a mean (SD) improvement of 0.17 (0.10) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.7 [1.0] lines) for the binocular game vs a mean (SD) improvement of 0.16 (0.12) logMAR (mean [SD], 1.6 [1.2] lines) for the patching crossover (P = .73). Conclusions and Relevance A binocular iPad game was effective in treating childhood amblyopia and was more efficacious than patching at the 2-week visit. Binocular games that rebalance contrast to overcome suppression are a promising additional option for treating amblyopia. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02365090.

Visual Acuity Deficits in Children With Nystagmus and Down Syndrome

PURPOSE To investigate the association between visual acuity deficits and fixation instability in children with Down syndrome and nystagmus. DESIGN Prospective cross-sectional study. METHODS setting: Institutional. study population:Sixteen children (aged 10 months-14 years) with Down syndrome and nystagmus, and a control group of 93 age-similar children with unassociated infantile nystagmus. observation procedures: Binocular Teller acuity card testing and eye-movement recordings. Fixation stability was quantified using the nystagmus optimal fixation function (NOFF). An exponential model based on results from the control group with unassociated infantile nystagmus was used to relate fixation stability to age-corrected visual acuity deficits. main outcome measures: Binocular grating visual acuity and NOFF. RESULTS Visual acuity was 0.2-0.9 logMAR (20/30-20/174 Snellen equivalent) and corresponded to a 0.4 logMAR (4 lines) mean age-corrected visual acuity deficit. Fixation stability ranged from poor to mildly affected. Although visual acuity deficit was on average 0.17 logMAR larger (P = .005) than predicted by the model, most children had visual acuity deficit within the 95% predictive interval. CONCLUSIONS There was a small mean difference between the measured visual acuity deficit and the prediction of the nystagmus model. Although other factors also contribute to visual acuity loss in Down syndrome, nystagmus alone could account for most of the visual acuity deficit in these children.

Evidence-Based Medicine: The Value of Vision Screening

Objective To review the literature for evidence-based medicine (EBM), to assess the evidence for effectiveness of vision screening, and to propose moving toward value-based medicine (VBM) as a preferred basis for comparative effectiveness research. Methods Literature based evidence is applied to five core questions concerning vision screening: 1) Is vision valuable (an inherent good)?; 2) Is screening effective (finding amblyopia)?; 3) What are the costs of screening?; 4) Is treatment effective?; and 5) Is amblyopia detection beneficial? Results Based on EBM literature and clinical experience, the answers to the five questions are: 1) yes; 2) based on literature, not definitively so; 3) relatively inexpensive, although some claim benefits for more expensive options such as mandatory exams; 4) yes, for compliant care, although treatment processes may have negative aspects such as “bullying”; and 5) economic productive values are likely very high, with returns of investment on the order of 10:1, while human value returns need further elucidation. Conclusion Additional evidence is required to ascertain the degree to which vision screening is effective. The processes of screening are multiple, sequential, and complicated. The disease is complex, and good visual outcomes require compliance. The value of outcomes is appropriately analyzed in clinical, human, and economic terms.

Improved Binocular Outcomes Following Binocular Treatment for Childhood Amblyopia

Purpose Childhood amblyopia can be treated with binocular games or movies that rebalance contrast between the eyes, which is thought to reduce depth of interocular suppression so the child can experience binocular vision. While visual acuity gains have been reported following binocular treatment, studies rarely report gains in binocular outcomes (i.e., stereoacuity, suppression) in amblyopic children. Here, we evaluated binocular outcomes in children who had received binocular treatment for childhood amblyopia. Methods Data for amblyopic children enrolled in two ongoing studies were pooled. The sample included 41 amblyopic children (6 strabismic, 21 anisometropic, 14 combined; age 4–10 years; ≤4 prism diopters [PD]) who received binocular treatment (20 game, 21 movies; prescribed 9–10 hours treatment). Amblyopic eye visual acuity and binocular outcomes (Randot Preschool Stereoacuity, extent of suppression, and depth of suppression) were assessed at baseline and at 2 weeks. Results Mean amblyopic eye visual acuity (P < 0.001) and mean stereoacuity improved (P = 0.045), and mean extent (P = 0.005) and depth of suppression (P = 0.003) were reduced from baseline at the 2-week visit (87% game adherence, 100% movie adherence). Depth of suppression was reduced more in children aged <8 years than in those aged ≥8 years (P = 0.004). Worse baseline depth of suppression was correlated with a larger depth of suppression reduction at 2 weeks (P = 0.001). Conclusions After 2 weeks, binocular treatment in amblyopic children improved visual acuity and binocular outcomes, reducing the extent and depth of suppression and improving stereoacuity. Binocular treatments that rebalance contrast to overcome suppression are a promising additional option for treating amblyopia.