Cycloplegic refraction in children: single-dose-atropinization versus three-day-atropinization

Ocular Cyclopentolate: A Mini Review Concerning Its Benefits and Risks

Cycloplegic and mydriatic agents are essential in ophthalmological clinical practice since they provide the means for diagnosing and treating certain eye conditions. In addition, cyclopentolate has proven to possess certain benefits compared to other available cycloplegics and mydriatics. Still, the incidence of some adverse drug reactions related to this drug, especially in susceptible patients, has created interest in reviewing the literature about the benefits and risks of using cyclopentolate. A literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed and Google Scholar, focusing on identifying cyclopentolate's benefits and risks; the most important benefit was its usefulness for evaluating refractive errors, especially for hyperopic children, pseudomyopia, anterior uveitis, treatment of childhood myopia, idiopathic vision loss, and during examinations before refractive surgery, with particular advantages compared to other cycloplegics. While the risks were divided into local adverse drug reactions such as burning sensation, photophobia, hyperemia, punctate keratitis, synechiae, and blurred vision, which are relatively frequent but mild and temporary; and systemic adverse drug reactions such as language problems, visual or tactile hallucinations and ataxia, but unlike ocular, systemic adverse drug reactions are rare and occur mainly in patients with risk factors. In addition, six cases of abuse were found. The treatment with cyclopentolate is effective and safe in most cases; nevertheless, special care must be taken due to the potential severe ADRs that may occur, especially in susceptible patients like children, geriatrics, patients with neurological disorders or Down's syndrome, patients with a low blood level of pseudocholinesterase, users of substances with CNS effects, and patients with a history of drug addiction. The recommendations are avoiding the use of 2% cyclopentolate and instead employing solutions with lower concentrations, preferably with another mydriatic such as phenylephrine. Likewise, the occlusion of the nasolacrimal duct after instillation limits the drug's absorption, reducing the risk of systemic adverse events.

Efficacy in myopia control

There is rapidly expanding interest in interventions to slow myopia progression in children and teenagers, with the intent of reducing risk of myopia-associated complications later in life. Despite many publications dedicated to the topic, little attention has been devoted to understanding 'efficacy' in myopia control and its application. Treatment effect has been expressed in multiple ways, making comparison between therapies and prognosis for an individual patient difficult. Available efficacy data are generally limited to two to three years making long-term treatment effect uncertain. From an evidence-based perspective, efficacy projection should be conservative and not extend beyond that which has been empirically established. Using this principle, review of the literature, data from our own clinical studies, assessment of demonstrated myopia control treatments and allowance for the limitations and context of available data, we arrive at the following important interpretations: (i) axial elongation is the preferred endpoint for assessing myopic progression; (ii) there is insufficient evidence to suggest that faster progressors, or younger myopes, derive greater benefit from treatment; (iii) the initial rate of reduction of axial elongation by myopia control treatments is not sustained; (iv) consequently, using percentage reduction in progression as an index to describe treatment effect can be very misleading and (v) cumulative absolute reduction in axial elongation (CARE) emerges as a preferred efficacy metric; (vi) maximum CARE that has been measured for existing myopia control treatments is 0.44 mm (which equates to about 1 D); (vii) there is no apparent superior method of treatment, although commonly prescribed therapies such as 0.01% atropine and progressive addition spectacles lenses have not consistently provided clinically important effects; (viii) while different treatments have shown divergent efficacy in the first year, they have shown only small differences after this; (ix) rebound should be assumed until proven otherwise; (x) an illusion of inflated efficacy is created by measurement error in refraction, sample bias in only treating 'measured' fast progressors and regression to the mean; (xi) decision to treat should be based on age of onset (or refraction at a given age), not past progression; (xii) the decreased risk of complications later in life provided by even modest reductions in progression suggest treatment is advised for all young myopes and, because of limitations of available interventions, should be aggressive.