丹麦近视儿童0.01%和0.1%负荷剂量阿托品治疗包括洗脱期的3年结果:一项安慰剂对照随机临床试验

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY British Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-03-23 DOI:10.1136/bjo-2024-326918
Niklas Hansen, Anders Hvid-Hansen, Flemming Møller, Toke Bek, Dorte Larsen, Nina Jacobsen, Line Kessel
{"title":"丹麦近视儿童0.01%和0.1%负荷剂量阿托品治疗包括洗脱期的3年结果:一项安慰剂对照随机临床试验","authors":"Niklas Hansen, Anders Hvid-Hansen, Flemming Møller, Toke Bek, Dorte Larsen, Nina Jacobsen, Line Kessel","doi":"10.1136/bjo-2024-326918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To examine the safety and efficacy of low-dose atropine (0.01% and 0.1% loading dose) after 2-year treatment and 1-year washout in 6-year-old to 12-year-old Danish children with myopia. Methods Investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised clinical trial. Of 124 screened children, 97 were randomised to receive 0.01% low-dose atropine for 24 months (0.01%) or 0.1% low-dose atropine for 6 months, then 0.01% for 18 months (0.1% loading dose) or placebo, followed by a 1-year washout. Altogether, 91 participants completed the study. The primary outcome was myopia progression (axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER)). Secondary outcomes were adverse events, ocular biometrical measurements and treatment responder eyes (myopia progression less than −0.50 diopters (D)). Constrained linear mixed models were constructed with individual eyes nested by participant ID, according to intention-to-treat. The responder analysis used Fisher’s exact test. Significance levels were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p values <0.05 were considered significant. Results At 3 years, the mean AL was −0.06 mm (95% CI −0.18; 0.07) and −0.09 mm (95% CI −0.21; 0.04) less compared with placebo in the 0.1% loading dose group and 0.01% group. Mean SER was −0.02 D (95% CI −0.30; 0.26) less and 0.17 D (95% CI −0.11; 0.45) more compared with placebo in the 0.1% loading dose group and 0.01% group. There was no significant group difference in the responder eyes. Conclusion There was no difference in myopia progression between groups following washout. A 6-month 0.1% loading dose did not improve efficacy compared with 0.01%. The 0.1% loading dose showed a rebound effect after dose switching. Data are available upon reasonable request. Data is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.","PeriodicalId":9313,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"3-year results of 0.01% and 0.1% loading dose atropine treatment including washout in Danish children with myopia: a placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"Niklas Hansen, Anders Hvid-Hansen, Flemming Møller, Toke Bek, Dorte Larsen, Nina Jacobsen, Line Kessel\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bjo-2024-326918\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim To examine the safety and efficacy of low-dose atropine (0.01% and 0.1% loading dose) after 2-year treatment and 1-year washout in 6-year-old to 12-year-old Danish children with myopia. Methods Investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised clinical trial. Of 124 screened children, 97 were randomised to receive 0.01% low-dose atropine for 24 months (0.01%) or 0.1% low-dose atropine for 6 months, then 0.01% for 18 months (0.1% loading dose) or placebo, followed by a 1-year washout. Altogether, 91 participants completed the study. The primary outcome was myopia progression (axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER)). Secondary outcomes were adverse events, ocular biometrical measurements and treatment responder eyes (myopia progression less than −0.50 diopters (D)). Constrained linear mixed models were constructed with individual eyes nested by participant ID, according to intention-to-treat. The responder analysis used Fisher’s exact test. Significance levels were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p values <0.05 were considered significant. Results At 3 years, the mean AL was −0.06 mm (95% CI −0.18; 0.07) and −0.09 mm (95% CI −0.21; 0.04) less compared with placebo in the 0.1% loading dose group and 0.01% group. Mean SER was −0.02 D (95% CI −0.30; 0.26) less and 0.17 D (95% CI −0.11; 0.45) more compared with placebo in the 0.1% loading dose group and 0.01% group. There was no significant group difference in the responder eyes. Conclusion There was no difference in myopia progression between groups following washout. A 6-month 0.1% loading dose did not improve efficacy compared with 0.01%. The 0.1% loading dose showed a rebound effect after dose switching. Data are available upon reasonable request. Data is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2024-326918\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2024-326918","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探讨低剂量阿托品(0.01%和0.1%负荷剂量)治疗6 ~ 12岁丹麦近视儿童2年及1年洗脱期后的安全性和有效性。方法研究者发起、安慰剂对照、双盲、随机临床试验。在124名筛选的儿童中,97名随机分组,接受0.01%低剂量阿托品治疗24个月(0.01%)或0.1%低剂量阿托品治疗6个月,然后接受0.01%低剂量阿托品治疗18个月(0.1%负荷剂量)或安慰剂,随后进行1年的洗脱期。总共有91名参与者完成了这项研究。主要结果是近视进展(眼轴长度(AL)和球面等效屈光度(SER))。次要结局是不良事件、眼部生物测量和治疗反应眼(近视进展小于- 0.50屈光度(D))。根据意向治疗,构建了参与者ID嵌套个体眼睛的约束线性混合模型。应答者分析使用Fisher的精确检验。对多重比较的显著性水平进行了调整。调整后的p值<0.05为显著性。结果3年时,平均AL为- 0.06 mm (95% CI - 0.18;0.07)和- 0.09 mm (95% CI - 0.21;0.04),与安慰剂相比,0.1%负荷剂量组和0.01%负荷剂量组减少。平均SER为- 0.02 D (95% CI - 0.30;0.26)和0.17 D (95% CI - 0.11;0.1%负荷剂量组和0.01%负荷剂量组与安慰剂组相比增加0.45)。在反应眼上没有显著的组间差异。结论洗脱后两组患者近视进展无差异。与0.01%负荷剂量相比,6个月0.1%负荷剂量没有提高疗效。0.1%的负荷剂量在剂量转换后表现出反弹效应。如有合理要求,可提供资料。如通讯作者提出合理要求,可提供数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
3-year results of 0.01% and 0.1% loading dose atropine treatment including washout in Danish children with myopia: a placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial
Aim To examine the safety and efficacy of low-dose atropine (0.01% and 0.1% loading dose) after 2-year treatment and 1-year washout in 6-year-old to 12-year-old Danish children with myopia. Methods Investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised clinical trial. Of 124 screened children, 97 were randomised to receive 0.01% low-dose atropine for 24 months (0.01%) or 0.1% low-dose atropine for 6 months, then 0.01% for 18 months (0.1% loading dose) or placebo, followed by a 1-year washout. Altogether, 91 participants completed the study. The primary outcome was myopia progression (axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER)). Secondary outcomes were adverse events, ocular biometrical measurements and treatment responder eyes (myopia progression less than −0.50 diopters (D)). Constrained linear mixed models were constructed with individual eyes nested by participant ID, according to intention-to-treat. The responder analysis used Fisher’s exact test. Significance levels were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p values <0.05 were considered significant. Results At 3 years, the mean AL was −0.06 mm (95% CI −0.18; 0.07) and −0.09 mm (95% CI −0.21; 0.04) less compared with placebo in the 0.1% loading dose group and 0.01% group. Mean SER was −0.02 D (95% CI −0.30; 0.26) less and 0.17 D (95% CI −0.11; 0.45) more compared with placebo in the 0.1% loading dose group and 0.01% group. There was no significant group difference in the responder eyes. Conclusion There was no difference in myopia progression between groups following washout. A 6-month 0.1% loading dose did not improve efficacy compared with 0.01%. The 0.1% loading dose showed a rebound effect after dose switching. Data are available upon reasonable request. Data is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
213
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) is an international peer-reviewed journal for ophthalmologists and visual science specialists. BJO publishes clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations related to ophthalmology. It also provides major reviews and also publishes manuscripts covering regional issues in a global context.
期刊最新文献
PROductivity Study of Presbyopia Elimination in gaRment workers (PROSPER II): a randomised trial on the productivity impact of providing near glasses to Indian garment factory workers. Prevalence and associations of intraretinal hyperreflective foci in age-related macular degeneration: the Beijing Eye Study. Cone structure and retinal sensitivity assessment in patients with red-green colour vision deficiency using multimodal imaging. Histopathological characteristics of secondary enucleation after iodide-125 plaque radiotherapy in Chinese patients with uveal melanoma. Efficacy of lenadogene nolparvovec gene therapy versus idebenone in Leber hereditary optic neuropathy due to the m.11778G>A MT-ND4 variant: two matching adjusted indirect comparisons.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1