Myopia Progression and Slit-Lamp Findings in Children: MiSight® 1 day clinical trial

Lumb, Elizabeth; Chamberlain, Paul; Arumugam, Baskar; Hunt, Chris; Young, Graeme P.

doi:10.1016/j.clae.2022.101663

Cited by 2 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only 128 children completed the study, but myopia progression (0.59 vs. 0.79 D) and axial elongation (0.25 vs. 0.37 mm) were lower in the DISC lens wearers than those in the spectacle wearers, giving an efficacy of 0.20 D and 0.11 mm. The mean wearing time was around only 6.5 hours per day in both groups, around half of that reported in similar studies 19,20 . This may be due to the lenses being lathe cut from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, with 38% water content, rather than cast molded in a more contemporary hydrogel material such as omafilcon A 8 or a silicone hydrogel such as senofilcon A 21 .…”

Section: Compliancementioning

confidence: 75%

“…Those children assigned to wear single-vision lenses for the first 3 years switched to dual-focus lenses thereafter. There was no significant difference in vision ratings 6 months after switching lens design, although three participants who discontinued at that point cited vision as the main reason, while another gave vision as a secondary reason for discontinuation 19 . This suggests that older children may be more discriminating when it comes to their vision.…”

Section: Quality Of Visionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The mean wearing time was around only 6.5 hours per day in both groups, around half of that reported in similar studies. 19,20 This may be due to the lenses being lathe cut from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, with 38% water content, rather than cast molded in a more contemporary hydrogel material such as omafilcon A 8 or a silicone hydrogel such as senofilcon A. 21 The low wearing times appear to have contributed to the modest myopia control efficacy of the lens.…”

Section: Soft Contact Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the 3-year clinical trial of a dual-focus soft contact lens, visual acuity with the lens and a spectacle overrefraction was no different from that with single-vision soft lenses with an overrefraction. 8,19 Presenting visual acuity was often worse with the single-vision lenses than the dual-focus lenses because of greater myopia progression. 19 After 6 years of wear, over 90% of participants rated themselves as seeing "kind of well" or "really well" for a range of activities, with "really well" accounting for the vast majority of those responses.…”

Section: Quality Of Vision Spectaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was no significant difference in vision ratings 6 months after switching lens design, although three participants who discontinued at that point cited vision as the main reason, while another gave vision as a secondary reason for discontinuation. 19 This suggests that older children may be more discriminating when it comes to their vision. A recent study in adults comparing vision with the dual-focus soft contact lens and a single-vision contact lens found that low-contrast visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were both significantly lower with the dual-focus lens.…”

Section: Quality Of Vision Spectaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Myopia control: Seeing beyond efficacy

Bullimore,

Jong,

Brennan

2024

Optom Vis Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SIGNIFICANCE The availability of a range of effective myopia control modalities enables the clinician to exercise judgment when discussing the treatment plan with the patient and their parents. This article outlines important considerations beyond efficacy. Clinically meaningful myopia control may be attained with some spectacle lenses, select soft contact lenses, some concentrations of atropine, and overnight orthokeratology. Given that satisfactory efficacy can be achieved with a range of modalities, other factors should be considered when deciding upon the best intervention for a given child. Four key factors—compliance, quality of vision, quality of life, and safety—are discussed in this review. Compliance directly impacts efficacy regardless of the modality and is the most important consideration, as it is influenced by quality of vision and comfort. Daily disposal myopia control contact lenses and overnight orthokeratology are generally associated with high compliance, provide better vision-related quality of life than spectacles, and carry a very low risk when used appropriately. A further benefit of overnight orthokeratology is the elimination of a need for optical correction during the day.

show abstract

Section: Compliancementioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Quality Of Visionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Soft Contact Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Of Vision Spectaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Of Vision Spectaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Myopia control: Seeing beyond efficacy

Bullimore,

Jong,

Brennan

2024

Optom Vis Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Optical interventions for myopia control

Logan,

Bullimore

2023

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: A range of optical interventions have been developed to slow the progression of myopia. This review summarizes key studies and their outcomes.Methods: Peer-reviewed, randomized controlled clinical trials of at least 18 months duration were identified.Results: Randomized clinical trials were identified and summarised: 13 for spectacles, 5 for overnight orthokeratology, 5 for soft contact lenses, and 3 for orthokeratology combined with low concentration atropine. Overnight orthokeratology trials were the most consistent with 2-year slowing of axial elongation between 0.24 and 0.32 mm. Other modalities were more variable due to the wide range of optical designs. Among spectacle interventions, progressive addition lenses were the least effective, slowing axial elongation and myopia progression by no more than 0.11 mm and 0.31 D, respectively.In contrast, novel designs with peripheral lenslets slow 2-year elongation and progression by up to 0.35 mm and 0.80 D. Among soft contact lens interventions, medium add concentric bifocals slow 3year elongation and progression by only 0.07 mm and 0.16 D, while a dual-focus design slows 3-year elongation and progression by 0.28 mm and 0.67 D. Conclusions: All three optical interventions have the potential to significantly slow myopia progression. Quality of vision is largely unaffected, and safety is satisfactory. Areas of uncertainty include the potential for post-treatment acceleration of progression and the benefit of adding atropine to optical interventions.

show abstract

Myopia Progression and Slit-Lamp Findings in Children: MiSight® 1 day clinical trial

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Myopia control: Seeing beyond efficacy

Myopia control: Seeing beyond efficacy

Optical interventions for myopia control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About