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.
central and peripheral plus contact lenses
extended depth of focus contact lenses
myopia
progression
Journal
Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)
ISSN: 1475-1313
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8208839
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
22
11
2018
accepted:
14
05
2019
pubmed:
11
6
2019
medline:
25
12
2019
entrez:
11
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31180155
doi: 10.1111/opo.12621
pmc: PMC6851825
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
294-307Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.
Références
Optometry. 2002 Aug;73(8):470-6
pubmed: 12365670
J Optom. 2018 Jan - Mar;11(1):10-20
pubmed: 28606456
Ophthalmology. 2010 Sep;117(9):1713-9
pubmed: 20570359
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 Sep;43(9):2852-8
pubmed: 12202502
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Apr;44(4):1492-500
pubmed: 12657584
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:507572
pubmed: 26605331
Ophthalmology. 2010 Sep;117(9):1763-8
pubmed: 20447693
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar;132(3):258-64
pubmed: 24435660
Ophthalmology. 2016 May;123(5):1036-42
pubmed: 26875007
Ophthalmology. 2006 Aug;113(8):1354-62
pubmed: 16877074
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 5;12(4):e0175120
pubmed: 28380081
Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Apr;93(4):353-66
pubmed: 26704144
Vision Res. 1997 Mar;37(6):659-68
pubmed: 9156210
Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Apr;93(4):435-44
pubmed: 26808384
Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Sep;87(9):631-41
pubmed: 20622703
Clin Exp Optom. 2008 Jul;91(4):394-9
pubmed: 18601670
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Dec 09;52(13):9362-7
pubmed: 22039230
Vision Res. 2002 Oct;42(22):2555-9
pubmed: 12445849
Ophthalmology. 2004 Jan;111(1):62-9
pubmed: 14711715
Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Nov;90(11):1207-14
pubmed: 24061152
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Sep 21;53(10):6479-87
pubmed: 22918633
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Jun 22;53(7):3913-9
pubmed: 22577080
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018 May;256(5):1011-1021
pubmed: 29396662
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jan;98(1):40-5
pubmed: 24169657
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009 Jan;29(1):41-8
pubmed: 19154279
Ophthalmology. 2004 Jan;111(1):53-61
pubmed: 14711714
Vision Res. 1994 Feb;34(3):293-301
pubmed: 8160365
Ophthalmology. 2007 Feb;114(2):216-20
pubmed: 17123613
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Dec 1;134(12):1355-1363
pubmed: 27768171
Ophthalmology. 1999 Oct;106(10):2010-5
pubmed: 10519600
Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Jan;89(1):27-32
pubmed: 21983120
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2019 Jul;39(4):294-307
pubmed: 31180155
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Feb 22;52(2):1078-86
pubmed: 20861487
Vision Res. 2009 Sep;49(19):2386-92
pubmed: 19632261
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Oct 11;53(11):7077-85
pubmed: 22969068
Vision Res. 1988;28(5):639-57
pubmed: 3195068
Ophthalmology. 2011 Jun;118(6):1152-61
pubmed: 21276616
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Sep 04;55(10):6765-73
pubmed: 25190657