Myopia Stabilization and Associated Factors Among Participants in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET)

Hardy, Robert J.; Hillis, Argye E.; Mutti, D O; Stone, Richard A.; Taylor, Carol; Dong, Li; Fazzari, Melissa; Gwiazda, Jane; Hyman, Leslie; Norton, Thomas T.; Thorn, Frank; Zhang, Qinghua; Grice, Kenneth; Fortunato, Christine; Weber, Cara; Beale, A. Brady; Kern, David M.; Bittinger, Sally; Ghosh, Debanjali; Pacella, Rosanna; Leske, M. Cristina; Hussein, Mohamed Toufic El; Hou, Wei; Schoenfeld, Elinor; Dias, Lynette; Harrison, Rachel; Zhu, Wei; Wang, Ying; Yassin, Ahmed; Schnall, Elissa; Rau, Cristi; Thomas, Jennifer; Wasserman, Marcela; Chen, Yi Ju; Ahmed, Sakeena; Merill, Leanne; Passanant, Lauretta; Rodríguez, Maria Lapeña; Schmertz, Allison; Park, Ann; Neuschwender, Phyllis; Veeraraghavan, Geeta; Santomarco, Angela; Sisti, Laura; Seib, Lydia; Everett, Donald F.; Marsh‐Tootle, Wendy; Niemann, Katherine; Frazier, Marcela; Baldwin, Catherine; Dillard, Carey; Becker, Kristine; Raley, James A.; Rawden, Angela; Harris, Nicholas; Mars, Trana; Rutstein, Robert P.; Kurtz, D; Weissberg, Erik; Moore, Bruce; Harb, Elise; Owens, Robert E.; Martin, Sheila; Bolden, Joanne; Smith, Justin; Jaramillo, Benny; Hamlett, Stacy; Vasilakos, Laura; Gladstone, Sarah; Owens, Chris; Kowalski, Patricia M.; Hazelwood, Jennifer; Manny, Ruth E.; Crossnoe, Connie J.; Fern, Karen D.; Deatherage, Sheila; Dudonis, Charles; Henry, Sally; McLeod, Jennifer; Batres, Mamie; Quiralte, J.; Garza, Giselle; Solis, Gabynely; Do, Joan; Ketcham, Andy; Scheiman, Mitchell; Zinzer, Kathleen; Pollack, Karen; Lancaster, Timothy; Elliott, Theresa; Bernhardt, Mark; Ferrara, Dan; Miles, Jeff; Wilkins, Scott; Wilkins, Renee; Smith, Jennifer Nicole; D'Antonio, Dawn; Lear, Lindsey; Dang, Sandy; Sporer, Charles; Jameson, Mary; Grossman, Abby; Torres, Mariel; Jones, Heather; Madigan-Carr, Melissa; Sanogo, Theresa; Bailey, Jo Ann

doi:10.1167/iovs.13-12403

Cited by 166 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, non-cycloplegic autorefraction measurements were used in the Gompertz curve fits described below because they were taken every 6 months in contrast to the cycloplegic autorefraction which was done annually. Comparison of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measures showed mean (SD) differences of 0.19 (0.22) D at baseline 21 and 0.23 (0.27) D on average throughout the 11-year follow-up period reported here, 25 with non-cycloplegic measurements more myopic than cycloplegic ones. Following cycloplegic autorefraction, ocular components (anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, vitreous chamber depth, and overall axial length) were measured by Sonomed A-2500 ultrasonography.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 44%

“…The distribution of ethnicity in the three Gompertz curve fit groups is significantly different ( p = 0.007), with more African-Americans in the group having no myopia progression after baseline, as reported previously. 25 The gender distribution did not vary by group ( p = 0.46).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…25 Right eye data were fit to individual Gompertz functions in participants with at least 6 years of follow-up and at least seven refraction measurements over 11 years. Four-hundred twenty-six of the 469 participants had valid curve fits.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four-hundred twenty-six of the 469 participants had valid curve fits. As reported previously, 25 the participants were classified into three categories: (1) children who were 6–7 years of age at baseline, (2) children ≥8 years of age at baseline with progressing myopia and (3) children ≥8 years old at baseline with myopia that did not progress.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the 14% (61/426) of participants classified as “no change” in lens thickness, their baseline values were used for their minimum lens thickness, similar to what was done previously to define myopia for the group with no progression. 25 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Longitudinal Changes in Lens Thickness in Myopic Children Enrolled in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET)

Gwiazda

Norton²,

Hou

et al. 2015

Current Eye Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To describe longitudinal changes in lens thickness in myopic children in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET) and to investigate the association between these changes and myopia progression. Methods Four-hundred sixty-nine 6 to <12-year-old children with −1.25 to −4.50 D of myopia were enrolled in COMET, a clinical trial comparing single vision lenses (SVLs) versus progressive addition lenses (PALs) for slowing myopia. Children remained in their original lenses for 5 years and then could wear contact lenses, SVLs or PALs. Myopia by cycloplegic autorefraction (Nidek ARK 700A) and ocular components, including lens thickness, by A-scan ultrasound (Sonomed A2500) were measured annually over 11 years. Analyses of lens thickness were based on right eye data from 426 children with refractions fit with Gompertz functions. Longitudinal lens thickness measurements for each participant were fit with a third-degree polynomial function, and average polynomial functions were calculated for three groups of children previously identified based on Gompertz functions: 6–7 years at baseline (n = 40), ≥8 years with progressing myopia (n = 329), and ≥8 years with non-progressing myopia (n = 56). ANOVAs were used for comparing the lens curve-based parameters among the three groups. Associations between lens and Gompertz parameters were assessed using Pearson correlations. Results Overall, between 6 and 18 years the lenses thinned and then thickened, with the minimum value of 3.37 ± 0.15mm reached at 11.56 ± 2.04 years. The minimum lens thickness did not differ among the three myopia groups (p = 0.09), nor was it correlated with the amount of myopia at lens minimum or amount of final myopia (r's = −0.01 and −0.03, respectively, p's>0.05). Conclusion As a similar pattern of change in lens thickness with age was found in all children, whether their myopia progressed or not, these results suggest that the association of lens thinning and thickening with the course of myopia is coincidental rather than causal.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 44%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Longitudinal Changes in Lens Thickness in Myopic Children Enrolled in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET)

Gwiazda

Norton²,

Hou

et al. 2015

Current Eye Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

School-Based Myopia Prevention Effort—Reply

Morgan

2016

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time spent outdoors is well recognized as a factor preventing the development of myopia onset, and measures including adding an outdoor class, locking classroom doors during class recess, or glassed roof and walls incorporated in a classroom have been developed. But promotion to increase time spent outdoors as a school-based intervention program remains challenging especially in East Asia. • Near work activity has been suggested as a risk factor for myopia although the evidence is not entirely consistent. The total duration of near work activity may not be as important as the type of near work activity. Core techniques to implementing interventions of near work activities include effective measures of near work-related parameters, real-time data analyses, and alert systems.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Myopia Progression Interventions in Children

Agyekum,

Chan,

Adjei

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceSeveral interventions exist for treating myopia progression in children. While these interventions’ efficacy has been studied, their cost-effectiveness remains unknown and has not been compared.ObjectiveTo determine cost-effective options for controlling myopia progression in children.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of interventions for controlling myopia progression over 5 years from a societal perspective in a simulated hypothetical cohort of patients aged 10 years with myopia. Myopia interventions considered included atropine eye drops, 0.05% and 0.01%, defocus incorporated multiple segment spectacles, outdoor activity, soft contact lenses (daily disposable and multifocal), rigid gas-permeable contact lenses, progressive addition lenses, bifocal spectacle lenses, orthokeratology, highly aspherical lenslets (HALs), and red light therapy; all interventions were compared with single-vision lenses. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the association of model uncertainties with the cost-effectiveness. Costs were obtained from the charges of the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong Eye Center.Main Outcome and MeasuresThe mean costs (in US dollars) per child included the cost of hospital visits, medications, and optical lenses. The outcomes of effectiveness were the annual spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) reductions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each strategy relative to single-vision lenses over a time horizon of 5 years.ResultsOutdoor activity, atropine (0.05%), red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology were cost-effective. The ICER of atropine, 0.05%, was US $220/SER reduction; red light therapy, US $846/SER reduction; and HALs, US $448/SER reduction. Outdoor activity yielded a savings of US $5/SER reduction and US $8/AL reduction. Orthokeratology resulted in an ICER of US $2376/AL reduction.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings suggest that atropine eye drops, 0.05%, and outdoor activity are cost-effective for controlling myopia progression in children. Though more expensive, red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology may also be cost-effective. The use of these interventions may help to control myopia in a cost-effective way.

show abstract

Myopia Stabilization and Associated Factors Among Participants in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET)

Abstract: The Gompertz function provides estimates of the age and the amount of myopia at stabilization in an ethnically diverse cohort. These findings should provide guidance on the time course of myopia and on decisions regarding the type and timing of interventions.

Cited by 166 publications

References 35 publications

Longitudinal Changes in Lens Thickness in Myopic Children Enrolled in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET)

Longitudinal Changes in Lens Thickness in Myopic Children Enrolled in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET)

School-Based Myopia Prevention Effort—Reply

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Myopia Progression Interventions in Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About