The Effects of the Relative Strength of Simultaneous Competing Defocus Signals on Emmetropization in Infant Rhesus Monkeys

Baskar Arumugam, Li-Fang Hung, Chi-Ho To, Padmaja Sankaridurg, Earl L Smith III, Baskar Arumugam, Li-Fang Hung, Chi-Ho To, Padmaja Sankaridurg, Earl L Smith III

Abstract

Purpose: We investigated how the relative surface area devoted to the more positive-powered component in dual-focus lenses influences emmetropization in rhesus monkeys.

Methods: From 3 to 21 weeks of age, macaques were reared with binocular dual-focus spectacles. The treatment lenses had central 2-mm zones of zero-power and concentric annular zones that had alternating powers of either +3.0 diopters (D) and 0 D (+3 D/pL) or -3.0 D and 0 D (-3 D/pL). The relative widths of the powered and plano zones varied from 50:50 to 18:82 between treatment groups. Refractive status, corneal curvature, and axial dimensions were assessed biweekly throughout the lens-rearing period. Comparison data were obtained from monkeys reared with binocular full-field single-vision lenses (FF+3D, n = 6; FF-3D, n = 10) and from 35 normal controls.

Results: The median refractive errors for all of the +3 D/pL lens groups were similar to that for the FF+3D group (+4.63 D versus +4.31 D to +5.25 D; P = 0.18-0.96), but significantly more hyperopic than that for controls (+2.44 D; P = 0.0002-0.003). In the -3 D/pL monkeys, refractive development was dominated by the zero-powered portions of the treatment lenses; the -3 D/pL animals (+2.94 D to +3.13 D) were more hyperopic than the FF-3D monkeys (-0.78 D; P = 0.004-0.006), but similar to controls (+2.44 D; P = 0.14-0.22).

Conclusions: The results demonstrate that even when the more positive-powered zones make up only one-fifth of a dual-focus lens' surface area, refractive development is still dominated by relative myopic defocus. Overall, the results emphasize that myopic defocus distributed across the visual field evokes strong signals to slow eye growth in primates.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Photographic images of the +3 D/pL dual-focus lenses (top) and a magnified view of the annular power zones for the 50:50, 33:67, 25:75, and 18:82 power ratio lenses (bottom). The width of the +3 D annular zones was 0.4 mm for all lenses; the widths of the zero-powered zones varied from 0.4 to 1.8 mm.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Spherical-equivalent, spectacle-plane refractive corrections (top) and vitreous chamber depths (bottom) plotted as a function of age for the right (filled symbols) and left eyes (open symbols) for individual +3 D/pL 33:67 lens-reared monkeys. The thin gray lines in each plot represent data for the right eyes of the 35 control monkeys. The plots for treated subjects are arranged from left to right according to the maximum degree of hyperopia observed during the treatment period.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Spherical-equivalent, spectacle-plane refractive corrections (top) and vitreous chamber depths (bottom) plotted as a function of age for the right (filled symbols) and left eyes (open symbols) for individual +3 D/pL 25:75 lens-reared monkeys. See Figure 2 for details.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Spherical-equivalent, spectacle-plane refractive corrections (top) and vitreous chamber depths (bottom) plotted as a function of age for the right (filled symbols) and left eyes (open symbols) for individual +3 D/pL 18:82 lens-reared monkeys. See Figure 2 for details.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Refractive errors for the right eyes plotted as a function of age for all of the individual lens-reared monkeys in the FF+3D, +3 D/pL 50:50, 33:67, 25:75, and 18:82 subject groups (A–E). The large symbols to the right in each panel represent the averages (±SD) for the lens-reared monkeys at the end of the treatment period. The shaded areas in each plot show the 10th to 90th percentile range of ametropias for the 35 control monkeys. The filled and open symbols represent animals that appeared to compensate for the anterior and posterior focal planes, respectively.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Spherical-equivalent, spectacle-plane refractive corrections (top) and vitreous chamber depths (bottom) plotted as a function of age for the right (filled symbols) and left eyes (open symbols) individual −3 D/pL 67:33 lens-reared monkeys. See Figure 2 for details.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Refractive errors for the right eyes plotted as a function of age for all of the individual lens-reared monkeys in the FF−3D, −3 D/pL 50:50 and 67:33 subject groups (A–C). The large symbols to the right in each panel represent the averages (±SD) for the lens-reared monkeys at the end of the treatment period. See Figure 5 for details. In (B) and (C), the filled and open symbols represent animals that appeared to compensate for the anterior and posterior focal planes, respectively.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Refractive errors are plotted as a function of the AL/CR for the right eyes of all the monkeys treated with dual-focus lenses. The circles, down triangles, up triangles, diamonds, and filled and open squares represent data for the monkeys treated with the +3 D/pL 50:50, 33:67, 25:75, 18:82, −3 D/pL 50:50, and 67:33 lenses, respectively. The solid line is the best-fitting regression line.
Figure 9
Figure 9
The average ametropias (±SEM) plotted as a function of the percentage of surface areas that was devoted to the powered portions of the treatment lenses. The control monkeys reared with unrestricted vision are represented at the 0 point on the abscissa. The monkeys reared with the FF−3D and FF+3D single-vision lenses are represented at the “100% −3 D” and “100% +3 D” positions, respectively. The dual-focus groups are positioned according to the proportion of lens surface areas devoted to the −3 D and +3 D power zones.

References

    1. Lin LL,, Shih YF,, Hsiao CK,, Chen CJ. Prevalence of myopia in Taiwanese schoolchildren: 1983-2000. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004; 33: 27–33.
    1. He M,, Zeng J,, Liu Y,, Xu J,, Pokharel GP,, Ellwein LB. Refractive error and visual impairment in urban children in southern China. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45: 793–799.
    1. Fan DS,, Lam DS,, Lam RF,, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and progression of myopia of school children in Hong Kong. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45: 1071–1075.
    1. Jung SK,, Lee JH,, Kakizaki H,, Jee D. Prevalence of myopia and its association with body stature and educational level in 19-year-old male conscripts in Seoul South Korea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 5579–5583.
    1. Wu JF,, Bi HS,, Wang SM,, et al. Refractive error, visual acuity and causes of vision loss in children in Shandong, China. The Shandong Children Eye Study. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e82763.
    1. Vitale S,, Ellwein L,, Cotch MF,, Ferris FL,, Sperduto RD. Prevalence of refractive error in the United States 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126: 1111–1119.
    1. Rose K,, Smith W,, Morgan I,, Mitchel P. The increasing prevalence of myopia: implications for Australia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001; 29: 116–120.
    1. Williams KM,, Bertelsen G,, Cumberland P,, et al. Increasing prevalence of myopia in Europe and the impact of education. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122: 1489–1497.
    1. Holden BA,, Fricke TR,, Wilson DA,, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123: 1036–1042.
    1. Chua SY,, Ikram MK,, Tan CS,, et al. Relative contribution of risk factors for early-onset myopia in young Asian children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56: 8101–8107.
    1. Koh V,, Yang A,, Saw SM,, et al. Differences in prevalence of refractive errors in young Asian males in Singapore between 1996-1997 and 2009-2010. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014; 21: 247–255.
    1. Vitale S,, Sperduto RD,, Ferris FL,, III. Increased prevalence of myopia in the United States between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009; 127: 1632–1639.
    1. Vitale S,, Cotch MF,, Sperduto RD,, Ellwein L. Costs of refractive correction of distance vision impairment in the United States, 1999-2002. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113: 2163–2170.
    1. Rein DB,, Zhang P,, Wirth KE,, et al. The economic burden of major adult visual disorders in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006; 124: 1754–1760.
    1. Zheng YF,, Pan CW,, Chay J,, Wong TY,, Finkelstein E,, Saw SM. The economic cost of myopia in adults aged over 40 years in Singapore. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 7532–7537.
    1. Curtin BJ,, Karlin DB. Axial length measurements and fundus changes of the myopic eye. I. The posterior fundus. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1970; 68: 312–334.
    1. Mitchell P,, Hourihan F,, Sandbach J,, Wang JJ. The relationship between glaucoma and myopia: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106: 2010–2015.
    1. Lim R,, Mitchell P,, Cumming RG. Refractive associations with cataract: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40: 3021–3026.
    1. Saw SM,, Gazzard G,, Shih-Yen EC,, Chua W-H. Myopia and associated pathological complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25: 381–391.
    1. Holden BA,, Wilson DA,, Jong M,, et al. Myopia: a growing global problem with sight-threatening complications. Community Eye Health. 2015; 28: 35.
    1. Verkicharla PK,, Ohno-Matsui K,, Saw SM. Current and predicted demographics of high myopia and an update of its associated pathological changes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015; 35: 465–475.
    1. Smith EL,, III. Optical treatment strategies to slow myopia progression: effects of the visual extent of the optical treatment zone. Exp Eye Res. 2013; 114: 77–88.
    1. Holden B,, Sankaridurg P,, Smith E,, Aller T,, Jong M,, He M. Myopia, an underrated global challenge to vision: where the current data takes us on myopia control. Eye (Lond). 2014; 28: 142–146.
    1. Sankaridurg PR,, Holden BA. Practical applications to modify and control the development of ametropia. Eye (Lond). 2014; 28: 134–141.
    1. Schaeffel F,, Glasser A,, Howland HC. Accommodation refractive error and eye growth in chickens. Vision Res. 1988; 28: 639–657.
    1. Wildsoet C,, Wallman J. Choroidal and scleral mechanisms of compensation for spectacle lenses in chicks. Vision Res. 1995; 35: 1175–1194.
    1. Graham B,, Judge SJ. The effects of spectacle wear in infancy on eye growth and refractive error in the marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Vision Res. 1999; 39: 189–206.
    1. Shaikh AW,, Siegwart JT,, Norton TT. Effect of interrupted lens wear on compensation for a minus lens in tree shrews. Optom Vis Sci. 1999; 76: 308–315.
    1. Howlett MH,, McFadden SA. Spectacle lens compensation in the pigmented guinea pig. Vision Res. 2009; 49: 219–227.
    1. Hung L-F,, Crawford MLJ,, Smith EL., III Spectacle lenses alter eye growth and the refractive status of young monkeys. Nature Med. 1995; 1: 761–765.
    1. Smith EL,, III, Hung L-F. The role of optical defocus in regulating refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res. 1999; 39: 1415–1435.
    1. Troilo D,, Totonelly K,, Harb E. Imposed anisometropia accommodation, and regulation of refractive state. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86: 31–39.
    1. Wallman J,, Winawer J. Homeostasis of eye growth and the question of myopia. Neuron. 2004; 43: 447–468.
    1. Zhu X,, McBrien NA,, Smith EL,, III, Troilo D,, Wallman J. Eyes in various species can shorten to compensate for myopic defocus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 2634–2644.
    1. Smith EL,, III, Hung LF,, Huang J,, Arumugam B. Effects of local myopic defocus on refractive development in monkeys. Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 1176–1186.
    1. Sankaridurg P,, Donovan L,, Varnas S,, et al. Spectacle lenses designed to reduce progression of myopia: 12-month results. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87: 631–641.
    1. Sankaridurg P,, Holden BA,, Smith EL,, III,, et al. Decrease in rate of myopia progression with a contact lens designed to reduce relative peripheral hyperopia: one-year results. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52: 9362–9367.
    1. Anstice NS,, Phillips JR. Effect of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on axial myopia progression in children. Ophthalmology. 2011; 118: 1152–1161.
    1. Walline JJ,, Greiner KL,, McVey ME,, Jones-Jordan LA. Multifocal contact lens myopia control. Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 1207–1214.
    1. Aller TA,, Liu M,, Wildsoet CF. Myopia control with bifocal contact lenses: a randomized clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93: 344–352.
    1. Lam CS,, Tang WC,, Tse DY,, Tang YY,, To CH. Defocus incorporated soft contact (DISC) lens slows myopia progression in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98: 40–45.
    1. Shih YF,, Hsiao CK,, Chen CJ,, Chang CW,, Hung PT,, Lin LL. An intervention trial on efficacy of atropine and multi-focal glasses in controling myopic progression. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001; 79: 233–236.
    1. Gwiazda J,, Hyman L,, Hussein M,, et al. A randomized clinical trial of progressive addition lenses versus single vision lenses on the progression of myopia in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44: 1492–1500.
    1. Fulk GW,, Cyert LA,, Parker DE. A randomized trial of the effect of single-vison vs. bifocal lenses on myopia progression in children with esophoria. Optom Vis Sci. 2000; 77: 395–401.
    1. Cheng D,, Woo GC,, Drobe B,, Schmid KL. Effect of bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles on myopia progression in children: three-year results of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014; 132: 258–264.
    1. Cho P,, Cheung SW,, Edwards M. The longitudinal orthokeratology research in children (LORIC) in Hong Kong: a pilot study on refractive changes and myopic control. Curr Eye Res. 2005; 30: 71–80.
    1. Walline JJ,, Jones LA,, Sinnott LT. Corneal reshaping and myopia progression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93: 1181–1185.
    1. Hiraoka T,, Kakita T,, Okamoto F,, Takahashi H,, Oshika T. Long-term effect of overnight orthokeratology on axial length elongation in childhood myopia: a 5-year follow-up study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 3913–3919.
    1. Charman WN,, Mountford J,, Atchison DA,, Markwell EL. Peripheral refraction in orthokeratology patients. Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83: 641–648.
    1. Kang P,, Swarbrick H. Peripheral refraction in myopic children wearing orthokeratology and gas-permeable lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2011; 88: 476–482.
    1. Smith MJ,, Walline JJ. Controlling myopia progression in children and adolescents. Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2015; 6: 133–140.
    1. Tse DY,, Lam CS,, Guggenheim JA,, et al. Simultaneous defocus integration during refractive development. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 5352–5359.
    1. Benavente-Perez A,, Nour A,, Troilo D. The effect of simultaneous negative and positive defocus on eye growth and development of refractive state in marmosets. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 6479–6487.
    1. McFadden SA,, Tse DY,, Bowrey HE,, et al. Integration of defocus by dual power fresnel lenses inhibits myopia in the mammalian eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: 908–917.
    1. Arumugam B,, Hung LF,, To CH,, Holden B,, Smith EL, III. The effects of simultaneous dual focus lenses on refractive development in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: 7423–7432.
    1. Schmid KL,, Wildsoet CF. Effects on the compensatory responses to positive and negative lenses of intermittent lens wear and ciliary nerve section in chicks. Vision Res. 1996; 36: 1023–1036.
    1. Winawer J,, Zhu X,, Choi J,, Wallman J. Ocular compensation for alternating myopic and hyperopic defocus. Vision Res. 2005; 45: 1667–1677.
    1. Norton TT,, Siegwart JTJ,, Amedo AO. Effectiveness of hyperopic defocus minimal defocus, or myopic defocus in competition with a myopiagenic stimulus in tree shrew eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47: 4687–4699.
    1. McBrien NA,, Arumugam B,, Metlapally S. The effect of daily transient +4 D positive lens wear on the inhibition of myopia in the tree shrew. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 1593–1601.
    1. Smith EL,, III, Harwerth RS,, Wensveen JM,, Ramamirtham R,, Kee C-S,, Hung LF. Effects of brief daily periods of unrestricted vision on the development of form-deprivation myopia in monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43: 291–299.
    1. Kee C-S,, Hung LF,, Qiao-Grider Y,, et al. Temporal constraints on experimental emmetropization in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48: 957–962.
    1. Smith EL,, III,, Hung LF,, Arumugam B,, Huang J. Negative lens-induced myopia in infant monkeys: effects of high ambient lighting. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: 2959–2969.
    1. Qiao-Grider Y,, Hung L-F,, Kee C-S,, Ramamirtham R,, Smith E,, III. Normal ocular development in young rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Vision Res. 2007; 47: 1424–1444.
    1. Hung L-F,, Ramamirtham R,, Huang J,, Qiao-Grider Y,, Smith EL, III. Peripheral refraction in normal infant rhesus monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49: 3747–3757.
    1. Smith EL,, III, Hung L-F,, Huang J. Protective effects of high ambient lighting on the development of form-deprivation myopia in rhesus monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 421–428.
    1. Smith EL,, III, Hung LF,, Arumugam B,, Holden BA,, Neitz M,, Neitz J. Effects of long-wavelength lighting on refractive development in infant Rhesus monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56: 6490–6500.
    1. Harris WF. Algebra of sphero-cylinders and refractive errors and their means, variance, and standard deviation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1988; 65: 794–902.
    1. Kee C-S,, Hung L-F,, Qiao-Grider Y,, Roorda A,, Smith EL,, III. Effects of optically imposed astigmatism on emmetropization in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45: 1647–1659.
    1. Kee C-S,, Hung L-F,, Qiao Y,, Habib A,, Smith EL,, III. Prevalence of astigmatism in infant monkeys. Vision Res. 2002; 42: 1349–1359.
    1. Kollbaum PS,, Jansen ME,, Tan J,, Meyer DM,, Rickert ME. Vision performance with a contact lens designed to slow myopia progression. Optom Vis Sci. 2013; 90: 205–214.
    1. Parssinen O,, Hemminki E,, Klemetti A. Effect of spectacle use and accommodation on myopic progression: final results of a three-year randomised clinical trial among schoolchildren. Br J Ophthalmol. 1989; 73: 547–551.
    1. Ong E,, Grice K,, Held R,, Thorn F,, Gwiazda J. Effects of spectacle intervention on the progression of myopia in children. Optom Vis Sci. 1999; 76: 363–369.
    1. Adler D,, Millodot M. The possible effect of undercorrection on myopic progression in children. Clin Exp Optom. 2006; 89: 315–321.
    1. Koomson NY,, Amedo AO,, Opoku-Baah C,, Ampeh PB,, Ankamah E,, Bonsu K. Relationship between reduced accommodative lag and myopia progression. Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93: 683–691.
    1. Chung K,, Mohidin N,, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002; 42: 2555–2559.
    1. Vasudevan B,, Esposito C,, Peterson C,, Coronado C,, Ciuffreda KJ. Under-correction of human myopia—is it myopigenic? A retrospective analysis of clinical refraction data. J Optom. 2014; 7: 147–152.
    1. Millodot M. Effect of ametropia on peripheral refraction. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1981; 58: 691–695.
    1. Seidemann A,, Schaeffel F,, Guirao A,, Lopez-Gil N,, Artal P. Peripheral refractive errors in myopic emmetropic, and hyperopic young subjects. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2002; 19: 2363–2373.
    1. Atchison DA,, Pritchard N,, Schmid KL. Peripheral refraction along the horizontal and vertical visual fields in myopia. Vision Res. 2006; 46: 1450–1458.
    1. Tabernero J,, Vazquez D,, Seidemann A,, Uttenweiler D,, Schaeffel F. Effects of myopic spectacle correction and radial refractive gradient spectacles on peripheral refraction. Vision Res. 2009; 49: 2176–2186.
    1. Lin Z,, Martinez A,, Chen X,, et al. Peripheral defocus with single-vision spectacle lenses in myopic children. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87: 4–9.
    1. Saw SM,, Chua WH,, Hong CY,, et al. Nearwork in early-onset myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43: 332–339.
    1. You X,, Wang L,, Tan H,, et al. Near work related behaviors associated with myopic shifts among primary school students in the Jiading District of Shanghai: a school-based one-year cohort study. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0154671.
    1. Flitcroft DI. The complex interactions of retinal, optical and environmental factors in myopia aetiology. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2012; 31: 622–660.
    1. Rose K,, Morgan I,, Ip J,, et al. Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115: 1279–1285.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit