Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight

Daniel Tilia, Jennie Diec, Klaus Ehrmann, Darrin Falk, Cathleen Fedtke, Fabian Conrad, Richard Wu, Ravi C Bakaraju, Daniel Tilia, Jennie Diec, Klaus Ehrmann, Darrin Falk, Cathleen Fedtke, Fabian Conrad, Richard Wu, Ravi C Bakaraju

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of two novel S.T.O.P. design (F2 and DT) contact lenses against MiSight when worn by myopic, young adults.

Method: This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ghosting (far away, intermediate, and near), vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and with monocular high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) at 6 m, binocular HCVA (6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm), binocular LCVA (6 m and 70 cm). Binocular function was assessed with heterophorias (3 m and 40 cm). Accommodative function was assessed with monocular accommodative facility (AF: 40 cm) and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm).

Results: F2 was rated higher than MiSight for clarity of vision (near and intermediate) and lack-of-ghosting ( P <0.001), while MiSight was rated higher than DT for clarity of vision (near, P <0.001). MiSight was better than F2 and DT for monocular HCVA (6 m) and binocular HCVA (6 m and 40 cm, P ≤0.02), but the maximum difference was ≤2 letters. There were no differences between designs for heterophoria ( P =0.61) nor were there any differences between DT and MiSight for any accommodative measure ( P >0.1). F2 was higher for monocular-AF ( P =0.007) and lower for AR (70 cm and 40 cm; P ≤0.007) compared with MiSight.

Conclusions: The visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of S.T.O.P. designs F2 and DT were comparable with MiSight. F2 outperformed MiSight in some aspects of subjective visual performance and monocular accommodative function.

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Myopia management efficacy over a two-year period for five different contact lens designs.– Efficacy is based on change in axial length relative to each design's respective control.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Power maps for MiSight, F2, and DT. The labeled distance power for each design is −3.00 D.
FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.
Participant flowchart.

References

    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. Mitchell P, Hourihan F, Sandbach J, et al. . The relationship between glaucoma and myopia: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1999;106:2010–2015.
    1. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Shih-Yen EC, et al. . Myopia and associated pathological complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005;25:381–391.
    1. Wong TY, Ferreira A, Hughes R, et al. . Epidemiology and disease burden of pathologic myopia and myopic choroidal neovascularization: An evidence-based systematic review. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;157:9–25. e12.
    1. Fricke TR, Holden BA, Wilson DA, et al. . Global cost of correcting vision impairment from uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ 2012;90:728–738.
    1. Smith TST, Frick KD, Holden BA, et al. . Potential lost productivity resulting from the global burden of uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ 2009;87:431–437.
    1. Cheng D, Schmid KL, Woo GC, Drobe B. Randomized trial of effect of bifocal and prismatic bifocal spectacles on myopic progression: Two-year results. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:12–19.
    1. Lam CSY, Tang WC, Tse DYY, et al. . Defocus incorporated multiple segments (DIMS) spectacle lenses slow myopia progression: A 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;104:363–368.
    1. Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of myopia in orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:7077–7085.
    1. Chamberlain P, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, Logan NS, et al. . A 3-year randomized clinical trial of MiSight lenses for myopia control. Optom Vis Sci 2019;96:556–567.
    1. Lam CSY, Tang WC, Tse DYY, et al. . 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. Ruiz-Pomeda A, Pérez-Sánchez B, Valls I, et al. . MiSight Assessment Study Spain (MASS). A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018;256:1011–1021.
    1. Sankaridurg P, Bakaraju RC, Naduvilath T, et al. . Myopia control with novel central and peripheral plus contact lenses and extended depth of focus contact lenses: 2 year results from a randomised clinical trial. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2019;39:294–307.
    1. Walline JJ, Greiner KL, McVey ME, et al. . Multifocal contact lens myopia control. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:1207–1214.
    1. Bullimore MA. The safety of soft contact lenses in children. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:638–646.
    1. Chalmers RL, McNally JJ, Chamberlain P, et al. . Adverse event rates in the retrospective cohort study of safety of paediatric soft contact lens wear: The ReCSS study. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2021;41:84–92.
    1. Cheng X, Brennan NA, Toubouti Y, et al. . Safety of soft contact lenses in children: Retrospective review of six randomized controlled trials of myopia control. Acta Ophthalmol 2020;98:e346–e351.
    1. Premarket Approval (PMA): MiSight 1 Day (Omafilcon A) Soft (Hydrophilic) Contact Lenses for Daily Wear. 2019. Available at: . Accessed February 10, 2022.
    1. Sha J, Tilia D, Diec J, et al. . Visual performance of myopia control soft contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopes. Clin Optom (Auckl) 2018;10:75–86.
    1. Brennan NA, Toubouti YM, Cheng X, et al. . Efficacy in myopia control. Prog Retin Eye Res 2021;83:100923.
    1. Kee CS, Hung LF, Qiao-Grider Y, et al. . Effects of optically imposed astigmatism on emmetropization in infant monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:1647–1659.
    1. Diec J, Tilia D, Thomas V, et al. . Predicting short-term subjective vision performance of contact lenses used in myopia control. Eye Contact Lens 2018;44:308–315.
    1. Tilia D, Sha J, Thomas V, et al. . Vision performance and accommodative/binocular function in children wearing prototype extended depth-of-focus contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2019;45:260–270.
    1. Kollbaum PS, Dietmeier BM, Jansen ME, et al. . Quantification of ghosting produced with presbyopic contact lens correction. Eye Contact Lens 2012;38:252–259.
    1. Bakaraju RC, Tilia D, Sha J, et al. . Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear. J Optom 2018;11:21–32.
    1. Tilia D, Bakaraju RC, Asper LJ, et al. . Associations between binocular vision disorders and contact lens dissatisfaction. Optom Vis Sci 2021;98:1160–1168.
    1. Tilia D, Bakaraju RC, Asper LJ, et al. . Comparison between eyes and methods of measuring accommodative response in non-presbyopic contact lens wearers. Optom Vis Sci 2019;96:E-Abstract 1905220.
    1. Atchison DA, Varnas SR. Accommodation stimulus and response determinations with autorefractors. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2017;37:96–104.
    1. Maldonado-Codina C, Morgan PB, Schnider CM, et al. . Short-term physiologic response in neophyte subjects fitted with hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:911–921.
    1. Efron N. Grading scales for contact lens complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998;18:182–186.
    1. Fedtke C, Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K, et al. . Visual performance of single vision and multifocal contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016;39:38–46.
    1. Kollbaum PS, Jansen ME, Tan J, et al. . Vision performance with a contact lens designed to slow myopia progression. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:205–214.
    1. Jong M, Tilia D, Sha J, et al. . The relationship between visual acuity, subjective vision, and willingness to purchase simultaneous-image contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2019;96:283–290.
    1. Papas EB, Decenzo-Verbeten T, Fonn D, et al. . Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance. Eye Contact Lens 2009;35:144–148.
    1. Papas E, Tilia D, McNally J, et al. . Ocular discomfort responses after short periods of contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92:665–670.
    1. Papas EB, Keay L, Golebiowski B. Estimating a just-noticeable difference for ocular comfort in contact lens wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:4390–4394.
    1. Gifford KL, Schmid KL, Collins JM, et al. . Multifocal contact lens design, not addition power, affects accommodation responses in young adult myopes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2021;41:1346–1354.
    1. Jiang BC, Tea YC, O'Donnell D. Changes in accommodative and vergence responses when viewing through near addition lenses. Optometry 2007;78:129–134.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren