Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice – 2019 Update

Purpose: A survey in 2015 identified a high level of eye care practitioner concern about myopia with a reported moderately high level of activity, but the vast majority still prescribed single vision interventions to young myopes. This research aimed to update these findings 4 years later. Methods: A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in eight languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy of available strategies and adoption levels of such strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies. Results: Of the 1336 respondents, concern was highest (9.0 ± 1.6; p < 0.001) in Asia and lowest (7.6 ± 2.2; p < 0.001) in Australasia. Practitioners from Asia also considered their clinical practice of myopia control to be the most active (7.7 ± 2.3; p < 0.001), the North American practitioners being the least active (6.3 ± 2.9; p < 0.001). Orthokeratology was perceived to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by pharmaceutical approaches and approved myopia control soft contact lenses (p < 0.001). Although significant intra-regional differences existed, overall, most practitioners did not consider single-vision distance under-correction to be an effective strategy for attenuating myopia progression (79.6 %), but prescribed single vision spectacles or contact lenses as the primary mode of correction for myopic patients (63.6 ± 21.8 %). The main justifications for their reluctance to prescribe alternatives to single vision refractive corrections were increased cost (20.6 %) and inadequate information (17.6 %). Conclusions: While practitioner concern about myopia and the reported level of activity have increased over the last 4 years, the vast majority of eye care clinicians still prescribe single vision interventions to young myopes. With recent global consensus evidence-based guidelines having been published, it is hoped that this will inform the practice of myopia management in future

Putting vital stains in context

Free to read While vital staining remains a cornerstone in the diagnosis of ocular disease and contact lens complications, there are many misconceptions regarding the properties of commonly used dyes by eye-care practitioners and what is and what is not corneal staining after instillation of sodium fluorescein. Similarly, the proper use and diagnostic utility of rose Bengal and lissamine green B, the other two ophthalmic dyes commonly used for assessing ocular complications, have similarly remained unclear. Due to the limitations of vital stains for definitive diagnosis, concomitant signs and symptoms in addition to a complete patient history are required. Over the past decade, there have been many reports of a type of corneal staining—often referred to as solution-induced corneal staining (SICS)—that is observed with the use of multipurpose solutions in combination with soft lenses, more specifically silicone hydrogel lenses. Some authors believe that SICS is a sign of lens/solution incompatibility; however, new research shows that SICS may be neither a measure of lens/solution biocompatibility nor ‘true’ corneal staining, as that observed in pathological situations. A large component of SICS may be a benign phenomenon, known as preservative-associated transient hyperfluorescence (PATH). There is a lack of correlated signs and/or symptoms with SICS/PATH. Several properties of SICS/PATH, such as appearance and duration, differentiate it from pathological corneal staining. This paper reviews the properties of vital stains, their use and limitations in assessment of the ocular surface, the aetiology of corneal staining, characteristics of SICS/PATH that differentiate it from pathological corneal staining and what the SICS/PATH phenomenon means for contact lens-wearing patients