Phase 2a randomised controlled feasibility trial of a new 'balanced binocular viewing' treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children age 3-8 years: trial protocol

Annegret Hella Dahlmann-Noor, John A Greenwood, Andrew Skilton, Daniel Baker, Siobhan Ludden, Amanda Davis, Hakim-Moulay Dehbi, Steven C Dakin, Annegret Hella Dahlmann-Noor, John A Greenwood, Andrew Skilton, Daniel Baker, Siobhan Ludden, Amanda Davis, Hakim-Moulay Dehbi, Steven C Dakin

Abstract

Introduction: Treatments for amblyopia, the most common vision deficit in children, often have suboptimal results. Occlusion/atropine blurring are fraught with poor adherence, regression and recurrence. These interventions target only the amblyopic eye, failing to address imbalances of cortical input from the two eyes ('suppression'). Dichoptic treatments manipulate binocular visual experience to rebalance input. Poor adherence in early trials of dichoptic therapies inspired our development of balanced binocular viewing (BBV), using movies as child-friendly viewable content. Small observational studies indicate good adherence and efficacy. A feasibility trial is needed to further test safety and gather information to design a full trial.

Methods/analysis: We will carry out an observer-masked parallel-group phase 2a feasibility randomised controlled trial at two sites, randomising 44 children aged 3-8 years with unilateral amblyopia to either BBV or standard occlusion/atropine blurring, with 1:1 allocation ratio. We will assess visual function at baseline, 8 and 16 weeks. The primary outcome is intervention safety at 16 weeks, measured as change in interocular suppression, considered to precede the onset of potential diplopia. Secondary outcomes include safety at other time points, eligibility, recruitment/retention rates, adherence, clinical outcomes. We will summarise baseline characteristics for each group and assess the treatment effect using analysis of covariance. We will compare continuous clinical secondary endpoints between arms using linear mixed effect models, and report feasibility endpoints using descriptive statistics.

Ethics/dissemination: This trial has been approved by the London-Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/1204), National Health Service Health Research Authority and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. A lay advisory group will be involved with advising on and disseminating the results to non-professional audiences, including on websites of funder/participating institutions and inputting on healthcare professional audience children would like us to reach. Reporting to clinicians and scientists will be via internal and external meetings/conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT03754153.

Keywords: OPHTHALMOLOGY; Paediatric ophthalmology; Strabismus.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AHD-N: Medical advisor for Santen, Novartis, CooperVision, SightGlassVision.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant flow chart. 3D, three dimensions; BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; SS-VEP, Steady-state visually evoked potentials.

References

    1. Carlton J, Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, et al. . The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4-5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008;1210.3310/hta12250
    1. Powell C, Hatt SR. Vision screening for amblyopia in childhood. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD005020. 10.1002/14651858.CD005020.pub3
    1. McKee SP, Levi DM, Movshon JA. The pattern of visual deficits in amblyopia. J Vis 2003;3:5–405. 10.1167/3.5.5
    1. Greenwood JA, Tailor VK, Sloper JJ, et al. . Visual acuity, crowding, and stereo-vision are linked in children with and without amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:7655–65. 10.1167/iovs.12-10313
    1. Webber AL, Wood JM, Gole GA, et al. . The effect of amblyopia on fine motor skills in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:594–603. 10.1167/iovs.07-0869
    1. O'Connor AR, Birch EE, Anderson S, et al. . The functional significance of stereopsis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:2019–23. 10.1167/iovs.09-4434
    1. Niechwiej-Szwedo E, Goltz HC, Chandrakumar M, et al. . Effects of anisometropic amblyopia on visuomotor behavior, III: temporal eye-hand coordination during reaching. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:5853–61. 10.1167/iovs.11-7314
    1. Grant S, Moseley MJ. Amblyopia and real-world visuomotor tasks. Strabismus 2011;19:119–28. 10.3109/09273972.2011.600423
    1. Rahi J, Logan S, Timms C, et al. . Risk, causes, and outcomes of visual impairment after loss of vision in the non-amblyopic eye: a population-based study. Lancet 2002;360:597–602. 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09782-9
    1. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. . Quality of life associated with visual loss: a time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1076–81. 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00254-9
    1. Membreno JH, Brown MM, Brown GC, et al. . A cost-utility analysis of therapy for amblyopia. Ophthalmology 2002;109:2265–71. 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01286-1
    1. Awan M, Proudlock FA, Grosvenor D, et al. . An audit of the outcome of amblyopia treatment: a retrospective analysis of 322 children. Br J Ophthalmol 2010;94:1007–11. 10.1136/bjo.2008.154674
    1. Stewart CE, Fielder AR, Stephens DA, et al. . Treatment of unilateral amblyopia: factors influencing visual outcome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:3152–60. 10.1167/iovs.05-0357
    1. Wallace MP, Stewart CE, Moseley MJ, et al. . Compliance with occlusion therapy for childhood amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:6158–66. 10.1167/iovs.13-11861
    1. Malik SR, Gupta AK, Grover VK. Occlusion therapy in amblyopia with eccentric fixation. Br J Ophthalmol 1970;54:41–5. 10.1136/bjo.54.1.41
    1. Holmes JM, Beck RW, Kraker RT, et al. . Risk of amblyopia recurrence after cessation of treatment. J Aapos 2004;8:420–8. 10.1016/S1091853104001612
    1. Tailor V, Bossi M, Bunce C, et al. . Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015:CD011347. 10.1002/14651858.CD011347.pub2
    1. Holmes JM, Manh VM, Lazar EL, et al. . Effect of a binocular iPad game vs part-time patching in children aged 5 to 12 years with amblyopia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:1391–400. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.4262
    1. Manh VM, Holmes JM, Lazar EL, et al. . A randomized trial of a binocular iPad game versus part-time patching in children aged 13 to 16 years with amblyopia. Am J Ophthalmol 2018;186:104–15. 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.11.017
    1. Gao TY, Guo CX, Babu RJ, et al. . Effectiveness of a binocular video game vs placebo video game for improving visual functions in older children, teenagers, and adults with amblyopia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2018;136:172–81. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6090
    1. Dahlmann-Noor A. Binocular treatment of amblyopia in children: teething problems on the path to clinical practice. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:1400–1. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.3657
    1. Kelly KR, Jost RM, Dao L, et al. . Binocular iPad game vs patching for treatment of amblyopia in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:1402–8. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.4224
    1. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Holmes JM, Manny RE, et al. . A randomized trial of binocular dig rush game treatment for amblyopia in children aged 7 to 12 years. Ophthalmology 2019;126:456–66. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.10.032
    1. Bossi M, Tailor VK, Anderson EJ, et al. . Binocular therapy for childhood amblyopia improves vision without breaking interocular suppression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017;58:3031–43. 10.1167/iovs.16-20913
    1. Epelbaum M, Milleret C, Buisseret P, et al. . The sensitive period for strabismic amblyopia in humans. Ophthalmology 1993;100:323–7. 10.1016/s0161-6420(13)32170-8
    1. Newsham D, O'Connor AR. Assessment of the density of suppression to identify risk of intractable diplopia in the United Kingdom. Strabismus 2016;24:45–50. 10.3109/09273972.2016.1170048
    1. Newsham D, O'Connor AR, Harrad RA. Incidence, risk factors and management of intractable diplopia. Br J Ophthalmol 2018;102:393–7. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310454
    1. Kushner BJ. Intractable diplopia after strabismus surgery in adults. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1498–504. 10.1001/archopht.120.11.1498
    1. Kehrein S, Kohnen T, Fronius M. Dynamics of interocular suppression in amblyopic children during electronically monitored occlusion therapy: first insight. Strabismus 2016;24:51–62. 10.3109/09273972.2016.1170047
    1. Baker DH, Simard M, Saint-Amour D, et al. . Steady-state contrast response functions provide a sensitive and objective index of amblyopic deficits. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:1208–16. 10.1167/iovs.14-15611
    1. Kwon M, Lu Z-L, Miller A, et al. . Assessing binocular interaction in amblyopia and its clinical feasibility. PLoS One 2014;9:e100156. 10.1371/journal.pone.0100156
    1. Kwon M, Wiecek E, Dakin SC, et al. . Spatial-frequency dependent binocular imbalance in amblyopia. Sci Rep 2015;5:17181. 10.1038/srep17181
    1. Elfadaly D, Abdelrazik ST, Thomas PBM, et al. . Can psychophysics be fun? exploring the feasibility of a Gamified contrast sensitivity function measure in Amblyopic children aged 4-9 years. Front Med 2020;7:469. 10.3389/fmed.2020.00469
    1. Bossi M, Hamm LM, Dahlmann-Noor A, et al. . A comparison of tests for quantifying sensory eye dominance. Vision Res 2018;153:60–9. 10.1016/j.visres.2018.09.006
    1. Tailor VK, Glaze S, Khandelwal P, et al. . Prescribed computer games in addition to occlusion versus standard occlusion treatment for childhood amblyopia: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2015;1:23. 10.1186/s40814-015-0018-y
    1. Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics 2012;30:729–47. 10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 2017;358:3453.
    1. Repka MX, Beck RW, Holmes JM, et al. . A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:603–11. 10.1001/archopht.121.5.603
    1. Holmes JM, Kraker RT, Beck RW, et al. . A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology 2003;110:2075–87. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.08.001
    1. Piano M, Newsham D. A pilot study examining density of suppression measurement in strabismus. Strabismus 2015;23:14–21. 10.3109/09273972.2014.1002621
    1. Holmes JM, Beck RW, Repka MX, et al. . The amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1345–53. 10.1001/archopht.119.9.1345
    1. Birch EE, Strauber SF, Beck RW, et al. . Comparison of the amblyopia treatment study HOTV and the electronic-early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity protocols in amblyopic children aged 5 to 11 years. J Aapos 2009;13:75–8. 10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.07.007
    1. Adams WE, Leske DA, Hatt SR, et al. . Defining real change in measures of stereoacuity. Ophthalmology 2009;116:281–5. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.012
    1. Tsirlin I, Colpa L, Goltz HC, et al. . Behavioral training as new treatment for adult amblyopia: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:4061–75. 10.1167/iovs.15-16583
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. . Spirit 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586. 10.1136/bmj.e7586

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe