The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Extended optical treatment versus early patching with a high dose patching regimen in amblyopia: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Extended optical treatment versus early patching with a high dose patching regimen in amblyopia: a multicentre randomized controlled trial
Extended optical treatment versus early patching with a high dose patching regimen in amblyopia: a multicentre randomized controlled trial
Background: amblyopia, the most common visual impairment of childhood, is a public health concern. An extended period of optical treatment before patching is recommended by the clinical guidelines of several countries. The aim of this study was to compare an intensive patching regimen, with and without extended optical treatment (EOT), in a randomised controlled trial.

Methods: EuPatch was a randomised controlled trial conducted in 30 hospitals in the UK, Greece, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Children aged 3–8 years with newly detected, untreated amblyopia (defined as an interocular difference ≥0·30 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] best corrected visual acuity [BCVA]) due to anisometropia, strabismus, or both were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequence to either the EOT group (18 weeks of glasses use before patching) or to the early patching group (3 weeks of glasses use before patching), stratified for type and severity of amblyopia. All participants were initially prescribed an intensive patching regimen (10 h/day, 6 days per week), supplemented with motivational materials. The patching period was up to 24 weeks. Participants, parents or guardians, assessors, and the trial statistician were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was successful treatment (ie, ≤0·20 logMAR interocular difference in BCVA) after 12 weeks of patching. Two primary analyses were conducted: the main analysis included all participants, including those who dropped out, but excluded those who did not provide outcome data at week 12 and remained on the study; the other analysis imputed this missing data. All eligible and randomly assigned participants were assessed for adverse events. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN51712593) and is no longer recruiting.

Findings: between June 20, 2013, and March 12, 2020, after exclusion of eight participants found ineligible after detailed screening, we randomly assigned 334 participants (170 to the EOT group and 164 to the early patching group), including 188 (56%) boys, 146 (44%) girls, and two (1%) participants whose sex was not recorded. 317 participants (158 in the EOT group and 159 in the early patching group) were analysed for the primary outcome without imputation of missing data (median follow-up time 42 weeks [IQR 42] in the EOT group vs 27 weeks [27] in the early patching group). 24 (14%) of 170 participants in the EOT group and ten (6%) of 164 in the early patching group were excluded or dropped out of the study, mostly due to loss to follow-up and withdrawal of consent; ten (6%) in the EOT group and three (2%) in the early patching group missed the 12 week visit but remained on the study. A higher proportion of participants in the early patching group had successful treatment (107 [67%] of 159) than those in the EOT group (86 [54%] of 158; 13% difference; p=0·019) after 12 weeks of patching. No serious adverse events related to the interventions occurred.

Interpretation: the results from this trial indicate that early patching is more effective than EOT for the treatment of most children with amblyopia. Our findings also provide data for the personalisation of amblyopia treatments.

Funding: Action Medical Research, NIHR Clinical Research Network, and Ulverscroft Foundation.
0140-6736
1766-1778
Proudlock, Frank A.
f420f7df-7647-4260-9723-679690b971d4
Hisaund, Michael
fb43f948-cf88-48f4-a285-89701ea2de7c
Maconachie, Gail
5653f342-04a5-486d-a716-9fae85472eee
Self, Jay
0f6efc58-ae24-4667-b8d6-6fafa849e389
Gottlob, Irene
4fae5bb9-2189-4eb2-ac59-fb6b57d7474f
et al.
EUPatch study group
Proudlock, Frank A.
f420f7df-7647-4260-9723-679690b971d4
Hisaund, Michael
fb43f948-cf88-48f4-a285-89701ea2de7c
Maconachie, Gail
5653f342-04a5-486d-a716-9fae85472eee
Self, Jay
0f6efc58-ae24-4667-b8d6-6fafa849e389
Gottlob, Irene
4fae5bb9-2189-4eb2-ac59-fb6b57d7474f

Proudlock, Frank A., Hisaund, Michael, Maconachie, Gail and Gottlob, Irene , et al. and EUPatch study group (2024) Extended optical treatment versus early patching with a high dose patching regimen in amblyopia: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. The Lancet, 403 (10438), 1766-1778. (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02893-3).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: amblyopia, the most common visual impairment of childhood, is a public health concern. An extended period of optical treatment before patching is recommended by the clinical guidelines of several countries. The aim of this study was to compare an intensive patching regimen, with and without extended optical treatment (EOT), in a randomised controlled trial.

Methods: EuPatch was a randomised controlled trial conducted in 30 hospitals in the UK, Greece, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Children aged 3–8 years with newly detected, untreated amblyopia (defined as an interocular difference ≥0·30 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] best corrected visual acuity [BCVA]) due to anisometropia, strabismus, or both were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequence to either the EOT group (18 weeks of glasses use before patching) or to the early patching group (3 weeks of glasses use before patching), stratified for type and severity of amblyopia. All participants were initially prescribed an intensive patching regimen (10 h/day, 6 days per week), supplemented with motivational materials. The patching period was up to 24 weeks. Participants, parents or guardians, assessors, and the trial statistician were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was successful treatment (ie, ≤0·20 logMAR interocular difference in BCVA) after 12 weeks of patching. Two primary analyses were conducted: the main analysis included all participants, including those who dropped out, but excluded those who did not provide outcome data at week 12 and remained on the study; the other analysis imputed this missing data. All eligible and randomly assigned participants were assessed for adverse events. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN51712593) and is no longer recruiting.

Findings: between June 20, 2013, and March 12, 2020, after exclusion of eight participants found ineligible after detailed screening, we randomly assigned 334 participants (170 to the EOT group and 164 to the early patching group), including 188 (56%) boys, 146 (44%) girls, and two (1%) participants whose sex was not recorded. 317 participants (158 in the EOT group and 159 in the early patching group) were analysed for the primary outcome without imputation of missing data (median follow-up time 42 weeks [IQR 42] in the EOT group vs 27 weeks [27] in the early patching group). 24 (14%) of 170 participants in the EOT group and ten (6%) of 164 in the early patching group were excluded or dropped out of the study, mostly due to loss to follow-up and withdrawal of consent; ten (6%) in the EOT group and three (2%) in the early patching group missed the 12 week visit but remained on the study. A higher proportion of participants in the early patching group had successful treatment (107 [67%] of 159) than those in the EOT group (86 [54%] of 158; 13% difference; p=0·019) after 12 weeks of patching. No serious adverse events related to the interventions occurred.

Interpretation: the results from this trial indicate that early patching is more effective than EOT for the treatment of most children with amblyopia. Our findings also provide data for the personalisation of amblyopia treatments.

Funding: Action Medical Research, NIHR Clinical Research Network, and Ulverscroft Foundation.

Text
Proudlock et al - 15-12-23 - FINAL CLEAN - TO AUTHORS - Accepted Manuscript
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (6MB)
Text
Appendix - 8-12-23 - CLEAN - Accepted Manuscript
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)
Text
1-s2.0-S0140673623028933-main - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (975kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 22 December 2023
e-pub ahead of print date: 2 May 2024
Published date: 2 May 2024

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 504895
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/504895
ISSN: 0140-6736
PURE UUID: a95f4b5a-2b6f-4f88-af8a-373e8e25d602
ORCID for Jay Self: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1030-9963

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 22 Sep 2025 16:31
Last modified: 23 Sep 2025 01:43

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Frank A. Proudlock
Author: Michael Hisaund
Author: Gail Maconachie
Author: Jay Self ORCID iD
Author: Irene Gottlob
Corporate Author: et al.
Corporate Author: EUPatch study group

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×