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

Padmaja Sankaridurg, Ravi C Bakaraju, Thomas Naduvilath, Xiang Chen, Rebecca Weng, Daniel Tilia, Pauline Xu, Wayne Li, Fabian Conrad, Earl L Smith 3rd, Klaus Ehrmann, Padmaja Sankaridurg, Ravi C Bakaraju, Thomas Naduvilath, Xiang Chen, Rebecca Weng, Daniel Tilia, Pauline Xu, Wayne Li, Fabian Conrad, Earl L Smith 3rd, Klaus Ehrmann

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to determine myopia control efficacy with novel contact lenses (CL) that (1) reduced both central and peripheral defocus, and (2) provided extended depth of focus with better global retinal image quality for points on, and anterior to, the retina and degraded for points posterior to the retina.

Methods: Children (n = 508, 8-13 years) with cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) -0.75 to -3.50D were enrolled in a prospective, double blind trial and randomised to one of five groups: (1) single vision, silicone hydrogel (SH) CL; (2) two groups wearing SH CL that imposed myopic defocus across peripheral and central retina (test CL I and II; +1.00D centrally and +2.50 and +1.50 for CL I and II at 3 mm semi-chord respectively); and (3) two groups wearing extended depth of focus (EDOF) hydrogel CL incorporating higher order aberrations to modulate retinal image quality (test CL III and IV; extended depth of focus of up to +1.75D and +2.50D respectively). Cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length (AL) measurements were conducted at six monthly intervals. Compliance to lens wear was assessed with a diary and collected at each visit. Additionally, subjective responses to various aspects of lens wear were assessed. The trial commenced in February 2014 and was terminated in January 2017 due to site closure. Myopia progression over time between groups was compared using linear mixed models and where needed post hoc analysis with Bonferroni corrections conducted.

Results: Myopia progressed with control CL -1.12 ± 0.51D/0.58 ± 0.27 mm for SE/AL at 24 months. In comparison, all test CL had reduced progression with SE/AL ranging from -0.78D to -0.87D/0.41-0.46 mm at 24 months (AL: p < 0.05 for all test CL; SE p < 0.05 for test CL III and IV) and represented a reduction in axial length elongation of about 22% to 32% and reduction in spherical equivalent of 24% to 32%. With test CL, a greater slowing ranging from 26% to 43% was observed in compliant wearers (≥6 days per week; Control CL: -0.64D/0.30 mm and -1.14D/0.58 mm vs test CL: -0.42D to -0.47D/0.12-0.18 mm and -0.70 to -0.81D/0.19-0.25 mm at 12 and 24 months respectively).

Conclusions: Contact lenses that either imposed myopic defocus at the retina or modulated retinal image quality resulted in a slower progression of myopia with greater efficacy seen in compliant wearers. Importantly, there was no difference in the myopia control provided by either of these strategies.

Keywords: central and peripheral plus contact lenses; extended depth of focus contact lenses; myopia; progression.

© 2019 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
2‐D plot depicting the power profile across the optical zone of the test lenses. x‐ and y‐ axes represent the optical zone diameter and the colours represent the power.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart of the participants through the parallel, five group randomised trial detailing the number of participants that attended and discontinued at each visit.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Estimated rate of progression (change in spherical equivalent and axial length from baseline).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Change in spherical equivalent and axial length from baseline at 12 and 24 months in compliant (≥6 days per week) and non‐ compliant wearers (≤5 days per week).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Probability of surviving progression of −0.75D or more during the 24 month period.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Monocular high and low contrast visual acuity with test and control lenses at 1 and 3 month visits.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Per cent eyes with subjective ratings of ≥9 and

Figure 8

Absolute refractive error profile (measured…

Figure 8

Absolute refractive error profile (measured at fovea and peripheral angles up to 30…

Figure 8
Absolute refractive error profile (measured at fovea and peripheral angles up to 30 degrees horizontally) unaided and with control lens, test lens I and test lens II.
All figures (8)
Figure 8
Figure 8
Absolute refractive error profile (measured at fovea and peripheral angles up to 30 degrees horizontally) unaided and with control lens, test lens I and test lens II.

References

    1. Tideman JW, Snabel MC, Tedja MS et al Association of zxial length with risk of uncorrectable visual impairment for Europeans with myopia. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016; 134: 1355–1363.
    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. Kuzin AA, Varma R, Reddy HS, Torres M & Azen SP. Ocular biometry and open‐angle glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 1713–1719.
    1. Xu L, Wang Y, Wang S, Wang Y & Jonas JB. High myopia and glaucoma susceptibility the Beijing Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 216–220.
    1. Jonas JB, Weber P, Nagaoka N & Ohno‐Matsui K. Glaucoma in high myopia and parapapillary delta zone. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0175120.
    1. Liu HH, Xu L, Wang YX, Wang S, You QS & Jonas JB. Prevalence and progression of myopic retinopathy in Chinese adults: the Beijing Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 1763–1768.
    1. Hsu WM, Cheng CY, Liu JH, Tsai SY & Chou P. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in an elderly Chinese population in Taiwan: the Shihpai Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 62–69.
    1. Iwase A, Araie M, Tomidokoro A, Yamamoto T, Shimizu H & Kitazawa Y. Prevalence and causes of low vision and blindness in a Japanese adult population: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 1354–1362.
    1. Buch H, Vinding T, La Cour M, Appleyard M, Jensen GB & Nielsen NV. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment and blindness among 9980 Scandinavian adults: the Copenhagen City Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 53–61.
    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. Schaeffel F, Glasser A & Howland HC. Accommodation, refractive error and eye growth in chickens. Vision Res 1988; 28: 639–657.
    1. Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF & Harwerth RS. Effects of optically induced blur on the refractive status of young monkeys. Vision Res 1994; 34: 293–301.
    1. Diether S & Schaeffel F. Local changes in eye growth induced by imposed local refractive error despite active accommodation. Vision Res 1997; 37: 659–668.
    1. Chung K, Mohidin N & O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res 2002; 42: 2555–2559.
    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. Edwards MH, Li RW, Lam CS, Lew JK & Yu BS. The Hong Kong progressive lens myopia control study: study design and main findings. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 2852–2858.
    1. Aller TA & Wildsoet C. Bifocal soft contact lenses as a possible myopia control treatment: a case report involving identical twins. Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91: 394–399.
    1. Yang Z, Lan W, Ge J et al The effectiveness of progressive addition lenses on the progression of myopia in Chinese children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; 29: 41–48.
    1. Fulk GW, Cyert LA & Parker DE. A randomized clinical trial of bifocal glasses for myopic children with esophoria: results after 54 months. Optometry 2002; 73: 470–476.
    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. Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF & Huang J. Relative peripheral hyperopic defocus alters central refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res 2009; 49: 2386–2392.
    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. 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 B, Smith E 3rd et al Decrease in rate of myopia progression with a contact lens designed to reduce relative peripheral hyperopia: one‐year results. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 9362–9367.
    1. Liu Y & Wildsoet C. The effect of two‐zone concentric bifocal spectacle lenses on refractive error development and eye growth in young chicks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 1078–1086.
    1. Benavente‐Perez A, Nour A & Troilo D. Axial eye growth and refractive error development can be modified by exposing the peripheral retina to relative myopic or hyperopic defocus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 6765–6773.
    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. Ruiz‐Pomeda A, Perez‐Sanchez B, Valls I, Prieto‐Garrido FL, Gutierrez‐Ortega R & Villa‐Collar C. MiSight Assessment Study Spain (MASS). A 2‐year randomized clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018; 256: 1011–1021.
    1. Tilia D, Bakaraju RC, Chung J et al Short‐term visual performance of novel extended depth‐of‐focus contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 435–444.
    1. Bakaraju RC, Ehrmann K & Ho A. Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 1. Optical performance evaluation via computed through‐focus retinal image quality metrics. J Optom 2018; 11: 10–20.
    1. Donovan L, Sankaridurg P, Ho A, Naduvilath T, Smith EL 3rd & Holden BA. Myopia progression rates in urban children wearing single‐vision spectacles. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 27–32.
    1. Cheng X, Xu J, Chehab K, Exford J & Brennan N. Soft Contact lenses with positive spherical aberration for myopia control. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: 353–366.
    1. Paune J, Morales H, Armengol J, Quevedo L, Faria‐Ribeiro M & Gonzalez‐Meijome JM. Myopia control with a novel peripheral gradient soft lens and orthokeratology: a 2‐year clinical trial. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 507572.
    1. Back A, Chamberlain P, Logan N et al Clinical evaluation of a dual-focus myopia control 1 day soft contact lens - 2-year results. Optom Vis Sci 2016; 93: E-abstract 160035.
    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. 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. 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.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere