Myopia Control Dose Delivered to Treated Eyes by a Dual Focus Myopia Control Contact Lens

SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with closed-loop models of regulated eye growth, a successful dual-focus (DF) myopia-control contact lens focused a significant proportion of light anterior to the central retina in eyes of treated children viewing near and distant targets. PURPOSE This study examined the optical impact of a DF contact lens during near viewing in a sample of habitual DF lens wearing children. METHODS Seventeen myopic children aged 14 to 18 years who had completed 3 or 6 years of treatment with a DF contact lens (MiSight 1 Day; CooperVision, Inc., San Ramon, CA) were recruited and fit bilaterally with the DF and a single-vision (Proclear 1 Day; CooperVision, Inc.) contact lens. Right eye wavefronts were measured using a pyramidal aberrometer (Osiris; CSO, Florence, Italy) while children accommodated binocularly to high-contrast letter stimuli at five target vergences. Wavefront error data were used to compute pupil maps of refractive state. RESULTS During near viewing, children wearing single-vision lenses accommodated on average to achieve approximate focus in the pupil center but, because of combined accommodative lag and negative spherical aberration, experienced up to 2.00 D of hyperopic defocus in the pupil margins. With DF lenses, children accommodated similarly achieving approximate focus in the pupil center. When viewing three near distances (0.48, 0.31, and 0.23 m), the added +2.00 D within the DF lens treatment optics shifted the mean defocus from +0.75 to -1.00 D. The DF lens reduced the percentage of hyperopic defocus (≥+0.75 D) in the retinal image from 52 to 25% over these target distances, leading to an increase in myopic defocus (≤-0.50 D) from 17 to 42%. CONCLUSIONS The DF contact lens did not alter the accommodative behavior of children. The treatment optics introduced myopic defocus and decreased the amount of hyperopically defocused light in the retinal image

IMI - Clinical Myopia Control Trials and Instrumentation Report

The evidence-basis based on existing myopia control trials along with the supporting academic literature were reviewed; this informed recommendations on the outcomes suggested from clinical trials aimed at slowing myopia progression to show the effectiveness of treatments and the impact on patients. These outcomes were classified as primary (refractive error and/or axial length), secondary (patient reported outcomes and treatment compliance), and exploratory (peripheral refraction, accommodative changes, ocular alignment, pupil size, outdoor activity/lighting levels, anterior and posterior segment imaging, and tissue biomechanics). The currently available instrumentation, which the literature has shown to best achieve the primary and secondary outcomes, was reviewed and critiqued. Issues relating to study design and patient selection were also identified. These findings and consensus from the International Myopia Institute members led to final recommendations to inform future instrumentation development and to guide clinical trial protocols

The Effect of Fractal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Refraction in Myopic Model Eyes

Purpose: To test multizone contact lenses in model eyes: Fractal Contact Lenses (FCLs), designed to induce myopic peripheral refractive error (PRE). Methods: Zemax ray-tracing software was employed to simulate myopic and accommodation-dependent model eyes fitted with FCLs. PRE, defined in terms of mean sphere M and 90–180 astigmatism J180, was computed at different peripheral positions, ranging from 0 to 35 in steps of 5, and for different pupil diameters (PDs). Simulated visual performance and changes in the PRE were also analyzed for contact lens decentration and model eye accommodation. For comparison purposes, the same simulations were performed with another commercially available contact lens designed for the same intended use: the Dual Focus (DF). Results: PRE was greater with FCL than with DF when both designs were tested for a 3.5 mm PD, and with and without decentration of the lenses. However, PRE depended on PD with both multizone lenses, with a remarkable reduction of the myopic relative effect for a PD of 5.5 mm. The myopic PRE with contact lenses decreased as the myopic refractive error increased, but this could be compensated by increasing the power of treatment zones. A peripheral myopic shift was also induced by the FCLs in the accommodated model eye. In regard to visual performance, a myopia under-correction with reference to the circle of least confusion was obtained in all cases for a 5.5 mm PD. The ghost images, generated by treatment zones of FCL, were dimmer than the ones produced with DF lens of the same power. Conclusions: FCLs produce a peripheral myopic defocus without compromising central vision in photopic conditions. FCLs have several design parameters that can be varied to obtain optimum results: lens diameter, number of zones, addition and asphericity; resulting in a very promising customized lens for the treatment of myopia progression.This research was supported by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (grant FIS2011-23175), the Generalitat Valenciana (grant PROMETEO2009-077) and the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (grant INNOVA SP20120569), Spain.Rodríguez Vallejo, M.; Benlloch Fornés, JI.; Pons Martí, A.; Monsoriu Serra, JA.; Furlan, WD. (2014). The Effect of Fractal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Refraction in Myopic Model Eyes. Current Eye Research. 39(12):1-10. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2014.903498S110391

How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version

Presbyopia:Effectiveness of correction strategies

Presbyopia is a global problem affecting over a billion people worldwide. The prevalence of unmanaged presbyopia is as high as 50% of those over 50 years of age in developing world populations due to a lack of awareness and accessibility to affordable treatment, and is even as high as 34% in developed countries. Definitions of presbyopia are inconsistent and varied, so we propose a redefinition that states “presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements”. Presbyopia is inevitable if one lives long enough, but intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors including cigarette smoking, pregnancy history, hyperopic or astigmatic refractive error, ultraviolet radiation, female sex (although accommodation is similar to males), hotter climates and some medical conditions such as diabetes can accelerate the onset of presbyopic symptoms. Whilst clinicians can ameliorate the symptoms of presbyopia with near vision spectacle correction, bifocal and progressive spectacle lenses, monovision, translating or multifocal contact lenses, monovision, extended depth of focus, multifocal (refractive, diffractive and asymmetric designs) or ‘accommodating’ intraocular lenses, corneal inlays, scleral expansion, laser refractive surgery (corneal monovision, corneal shrinkage, corneal multifocal profiles and lenticular softening), pharmacologic agents, and electro-stimulation of the ciliary muscle, none fully overcome presbyopia in all patients. While the restoration of natural accommodation or an equivalent remains elusive, guidance is gives on presbyopic correction evaluation techniques

Nasal-temporal asymmetry in peripheral refraction with an aspheric myopia control contact lens

A combination of human subject data and optical modelling was used to investigate unexpected nasal-temporal asymmetry in peripheral refraction with an aspheric myopia control lens. Peripheral refraction was measured with an auto-refractor and an aberrometer. Peripheral refraction with the lens was highly dependent upon instrument and method (e.g. pupil size and the number of aberration orders). A model that did not account for on-eye conformation did not mirror the clinical results, but a model assuming complete lens conformation to the anterior corneal topography accounted for the positive shift in clinically measured refraction at larger nasal field angles. The findings indicate that peripheral refraction of highly aspheric contact lenses is dependent on lens conformation and the method of measurement. These measurement methods must be reported, and care must be used in interpreting results