Effect of High Add Power, Medium Add Power, or Single-Vision Contact Lenses on Myopia Progression in Children: The BLINK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Slowing myopia progression could decrease the risk of sight-threatening complications. Objective: To determine whether soft multifocal contact lenses slow myopia progression in children, and whether high add power (+2.50 D) slows myopia progression more than medium (+1.50 D) add power lenses. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-masked randomized clinical trial that took place at 2 optometry schools located in Columbus, Ohio, and Houston, Texas. A total of 294 consecutive eligible children aged 7 to 11 years with -0.75 D to -5.00 D of spherical component myopia and less than 1.00 D astigmatism were enrolled between September 22, 2014, and June 20, 2016. Follow-up was completed June 24, 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to wear high add power (n = 98), medium add power (n = 98), or single-vision (n = 98) contact lenses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 3-year change in cycloplegic spherical equivalent autorefraction, as measured by the mean of 10 autorefraction readings. There were 11 secondary end points, 4 of which were analyzed for this study, including 3-year eye growth. Results: Among 294 randomized participants, 292 (99%) were included in the analyses (mean [SD] age, 10.3 [1.2] years; 177 [60.2%] were female; mean [SD] spherical equivalent refractive error, -2.39 [1.00] D). Adjusted 3-year myopia progression was -0.60 D for high add power, -0.89 D for medium add power, and -1.05 D for single-vision contact lenses. The difference in progression was 0.46 D (95% CI, 0.29-0.63) for high add power vs single vision, 0.30 D (95% CI, 0.13-0.47) for high add vs medium add power, and 0.16 D (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.33) for medium add power vs single vision. Of the 4 secondary end points, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 3 of the end points. Adjusted mean eye growth was 0.42 mm for high add power, 0.58 mm for medium add power, and 0.66 mm for single vision. The difference in eye growth was -0.23 mm (95% CI, -0.30 to -0.17) for high add power vs single vision, -0.16 mm (95% CI, -0.23 to -0.09) for high add vs medium add power, and -0.07 mm (95% CI, -0.14 to -0.01) for medium add power vs single vision. Conclusions and Relevance: Among children with myopia, treatment with high add power multifocal contact lenses significantly reduced the rate of myopia progression over 3 years compared with medium add power multifocal and single-vision contact lenses. However, further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of the observed differences. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02255474.

Visual Acuity and Over-refraction in Myopic Children Fitted with Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses.

SIGNIFICANCE: Practitioners fitting contact lenses for myopia control frequently question whether a myopic child can achieve good vision with a high-add multifocal. We demonstrate that visual acuity is not different than spectacles with a commercially available, center-distance soft multifocal contact lens (MFCL) (Biofinity Multifocal "D"; +2.50 D add). PURPOSE: To determine the spherical over-refraction (SOR) necessary to obtain best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) when fitting myopic children with a center-distance soft MFCL. METHODS: Children (n = 294) aged 7 to 11 years with myopia (spherical component) of -0.75 to -5.00 diopters (D) (inclusive) and 1.00 D cylinder or less (corneal plane) were fitted bilaterally with +2.50 D add Biofinity "D" MFCLs. The initial MFCL power was the spherical equivalent of a standardized subjective refraction, rounded to the nearest 0.25 D step (corneal plane). An SOR was performed monocularly (each eye) to achieve BCVA. Binocular, high-contrast logMAR acuity was measured with manifest spectacle correction and MFCLs with over-refraction. Photopic pupil size was measured with a pupilometer. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age was 10.3 ± 1.2 years, and the mean (±SD) SOR needed to achieve BCVA was OD: -0.61 ± 0.24 D/OS: -0.58 ± 0.27 D. There was no difference in binocular high-contrast visual acuity (logMAR) between spectacles (-0.01 ± 0.06) and best-corrected MFCLs (-0.01 ± 0.07) (P = .59). The mean (±SD) photopic pupil size (5.4 ± 0.7 mm) was not correlated with best MFCL correction or the over-refraction magnitude (both P ≥ .09). CONCLUSIONS: Children achieved BCVA with +2.50 D add MFCLs that was not different than with spectacles. Children typically required an over-refraction of -0.50 to -0.75 D to achieve BCVA. With a careful over-refraction, these +2.50 D add MFCLs provide good distance acuity, making them viable candidates for myopia control.

Variables affecting rigid contact lens comfort in the collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus (CLEK) study.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with rigid contact lens comfort in keratoconus. METHODS: Baseline data from the 16 Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study clinical sites were analyzed for all patients wearing a rigid contact lens in their more severely keratoconic eye (as determined by steep keratometry). Corneal transplant patients, patients who did not wear a rigid contact lens in either eye, patients who did not wear a rigid lens in their worse eye, and patients with missing contact lens comfort data were excluded from the sample. A total of 751 eyes were included. Variables assessed included measures of disease severity, visual acuity through the patients' habitual rigid contact lenses, contact lens wearing time, the apical fitting relationship of the contact lens, the degree of peripheral clearance, and the presence of corneal scarring and staining. Comfort was measured by asking the patients "In general, how comfortable are your contact lenses?" (1 = very comfortable through 5 = very irritating). RESULTS: Measures of disease severity (steep keratometry and the first definite apical clearance lens) were not associated with lens comfort. There was no difference in self-reported contact lens comfort between patients fitted with apical touch vs. apical clearance. Patients with a peripheral clearance rating of "minimal unacceptable" (more common among patients with milder keratoconus) were approximately half as likely to report good contact lens comfort compared with patients with "average" peripheral clearance (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.79). There was no association between contact lens comfort and the other peripheral clearance ratings compared with ratings of average. CONCLUSIONS: There does not appear to be an association between decreasing patient-reported rigid lens comfort and increasing disease severity as measured by steep keratometry or first definite apical clearance lens in this sample. The apical fitting relationship (flat vs. steep) does not appear to be associated with patient-reported comfort. Minimal peripheral clearance may contribute to decreased rigid contact lens comfort in keratoconus.