4.6 Article

The acceptability and visual impact of 0.01% atropine in a Caucasian population

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 100, 期 11, 页码 1525-1529

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307861

关键词

Child health (paediatrics); Ciliary body; Physiology; Pharmacology; Public health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Myopia is a condition of enormous public health concern, affecting up to 2.5 billion people worldwide. The most effective treatment to prevent myopia progression is atropine but at the cost of accommodative paresis and mydriasis, necessitating the use of bifocal glasses. Low-dose atropine (0.01%) has been found to be almost as effective with significantly reduced side effects. Since there are well-recognised differences in the effect of atropine between heavily pigmented Asian eyes and Caucasian eyes, this study aimed to determine the acceptability and tolerability of 0.01% atropine (by measuring visual performance and quality of life) as a treatment for myopia control in a Caucasian population exhibiting light irides. Methods 14 university students aged 18-27 were recruited to the study. Participants received one drop of 0.01% atropine daily into each eye over 5days. A range of physiological, functional and quality of life measures were assessed at baseline, day 3 and day 5. Results The effect of atropine was statistically significant for pupil size (p=0.04) and responsiveness (p<0.01). While amplitude of accommodation reduced, the change was not statistically significant. Visual acuity (distance and near) and reading speed were not adversely affected. While there was a slight increase in symptoms such as glare, overall there was no quality of life impact associated with the use of low-dose atropine. Conclusions Overall, 0.01% of atropine was generally well tolerated bilaterally and no serious adverse effects were observed. Therefore this dose appears to provide a viable therapeutic option for myopia control among Caucasian eyes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据