This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (18)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Optics/ Refraction  • Pediatric Ophthalmology  • Articles for Residents  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A 1-Year, Multicenter, Double-Masked, Placebo-Controlled Parallel Study

R. Michael Siatkowski, MD; Susan Cotter, OD; Joseph M. Miller, MD; Colin A. Scher, MD; R. Stephens Crockett, PhD; Gary D. Novack, PhD; for the US Pirenzepine Study Group

Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1667-1674.

Objective  To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the relatively selective M₁ antagonist pirenzepine hydrochloride in slowing the progression of myopia in school-aged children.

Methods  This was a parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-masked study in healthy children, aged 8 to 12 years, with a spherical equivalent of –0.75 to –4.00 diopters (D) and astigmatism of 1.00 D or less. Patients underwent a baseline complete eye examination and regular examinations during a 1-year period. The setting was 13 US academic clinics and private practices. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive 2% pirenzepine ophthalmic gel or a placebo control twice daily for 1 year.

Results  At study entry, the spherical equivalent was mean ± SD –2.098 ± 0.903 D for the pirenzepine group (n = 117) and –1.933 ± 0.825 D for the placebo group (n = 57, P = .22). At 1 year, there was a mean increase in myopia of 0.26 D in the pirenzepine group vs 0.53 D in the placebo group (P < .001). No patients in the placebo group and 13 (11%) of 117 patients in the pirenzepine group discontinued participation in the study because of adverse effects (5 [4%] of 117 due to excessive antimuscarinic effects).

Conclusions  Pirenzepine is effective and relatively safe in slowing the progression of myopia during a 1-year treatment period.

Author Affiliations: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Oklahoma, and Dean A. McGee Eye Institute, Oklahoma City (Dr Siatkowski); Southern California College of Optomety, Fullerton (Dr Cotter); Departments of Ophthalmology, Optical Sciences, and Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson (Dr Miller); Department of Ophthalmology, Children’s Hospital and Health Center, San Diego, Calif (Dr Scher); D.A.T.A., Inc, Mobile, Ala (Dr Crockett); and PharmaLogic Development, Inc, San Rafael, Calif (Dr Novack).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Associations Between Near Work, Outdoor Activity, and Myopia Among Adolescent Students in Rural China: The Xichang Pediatric Refractive Error Study Report No. 2
Lu et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:769-775.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Progressive Addition Lenses on Myopia Progression in Japanese Children: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Masked, Crossover Trial
Hasebe et al.
IOVS 2008;49:2781-2789.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Form-Deprivation Myopia in Chick Induces Limited Changes in Retinal Gene Expression
McGlinn et al.
IOVS 2007;48:3430-3436.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Parental History of Myopia, Sports and Outdoor Activities, and Future Myopia
Jones et al.
IOVS 2007;48:3524-3532.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Three-dimensional modeling of the human eye based on magnetic resonance imaging.
Singh et al.
IOVS 2006;47:2272-2279.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT