Two-Year Clinical Trial of the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) Study: Phase 2 Report

Jason C Yam,Fen Fen Li,Xiujuan Zhang,Shu Min Tang,Benjamin H K Yip,Ka Wai Kam,Simon T Ko,Alvin L Young,Clement C Tham,Li Jia Chen,Chi Pui Pang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.12.011
IF: 14.277
Ophthalmology
Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine eye drops over 2 years to determine which is the optimal concentration for longer-term myopia control. Design: Randomized, double-masked trial extended from the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) Study. Participants: Three hundred eighty-three of 438 children (87%) aged 4 to 12 years with myopia of at least -1.0 diopter (D) originally randomized to receive atropine 0.05%, 0.025%, 0.01%, or placebo once daily in both eyes in the LAMP phase 1 study were continued in this extended trial (phase 2). Methods: Children in the placebo group (phase 1) were switched to receive 0.05% atropine from the beginning of the second-year follow-up, whereas those in the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups continued with the same regimen. Cycloplegic refraction, axial length (AL), accommodation amplitude, photopic and mesopic pupil diameter, and best-corrected visual acuity were measured at 4-month intervals. Main outcome measures: Changes in spherical equivalent (SE) and AL and their differences between groups. Results: Over the 2-year period, the mean SE progression was 0.55±0.86 D, 0.85±0.73 D, and 1.12±0.85 D in the 0.05%, 0.025%, and 0.01% atropine groups, respectively (P = 0.015, P < 0.001, and P = 0.02, respectively, for pairwise comparisons), with mean AL changes over 2 years of 0.39±0.35 mm, 0.50±0.33 mm, and 0.59±0.38 mm (P = 0.04, P < 0.001, and P = 0.10, respectively). Compared with the first year, the second-year efficacy of 0.05% and 0.025% atropine remained similar (P >0.1), but improved mildly in the 0.01% atropine group (P = 0.04). For the phase 1 placebo group, the myopia progression was reduced significantly after switching to 0.05% atropine (SE change, 0.18 D in second year vs. 0.82 D in first year [P < 0.001]; AL elongated 0.15 mm in second year vs. 0.43 mm in first year [P < 0.001]). Accommodation loss and change in pupil size in all concentrations remained similar to the first-year results and were well tolerated. Visual acuity and vision-related quality of life remained unaffected. Conclusions: Over 2 years, the efficacy of 0.05% atropine observed was double that observed with 0.01% atropine, and it remained the optimal concentration among the studied atropine concentrations in slowing myopia progression.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?