Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Aim: In this retrospective audit, Atropine 0.025% eyedrops were evaluated in a clinical setting. Method: Children aged 4–16 years, who were started on Atropine 0.025% with at least 6 months of follow-up, were included. A total of 588 eyes (299 children) were classified as treatment-naïve eyes started on Atropine 0.025% daily (Group A, n146), eyes progressing on Atropine 0.01% daily increased to 0.025% daily (Group B, n287) or combined with myopia control glasses (Group C, n66), and those stable on Atropine 0.01% twice daily converted to Atropine 0.025% daily (Group D, n89). Spherical equivalent (SE) and axial length (AL) were recorded from 6 months before treatment to 24 months after treatment began. Result: Group A children were younger (8.4 ± 1.5 years), while Group D children were older (10.6 ± 1.59 years). Progression in the first 6 m was significantly less than that in 6 m prior in Groups A-C. At 1 year, a change in AL < 0.15 mm was noted in 41%, 49%, 50% and 35%, and a change in AL ≥ 0.30 mm was observed in 38%, 18%, 32% and 23% of eyes in Groups A, B, C and D, respectively. Treatment was increased in 37%, 34%, 12% and 41% of eyes over 2 years in Groups A, B, C and D, respectively. Mean progression at 2 years was −0.63 ± 0.86 D or 0.44 ± 0.31 mm, −0.39 ± 0.59 D or 0.30 ± 0.26 mm, −0.30 ± 0.48 D or 0.36 ± 0.40 mm, and −0.48 ± 0.54 D or 0.33 ± 0.22 mm in Groups A, B, C and D, respectively. Multivariate analysis suggested that progression was mainly associated with younger age. Conclusions: Atropine 0.025% was a useful addition to myopia control, with some eyes requiring further modification in treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaiwen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: