Strategies to Regulate Myopia Progression With Contact Lenses: A Review.

PURPOSE: Higher myopic refractive errors are associated with serious ocular complications that can put visual function at risk. There is respective interest in slowing and if possible stopping myopia progression before it reaches a level associated with increased risk of secondary pathology. The purpose of this report was to review our understanding of the rationale(s) and success of contact lenses (CLs) used to reduce myopia progression. METHODS: A review commenced by searching the PubMed database. The inclusion criteria stipulated publications of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of CLs in regulating myopia progression based on the primary endpoint of changes in axial length measurements and published in peer-reviewed journals. Other publications from conference proceedings or patents were exceptionally considered when no peer-review articles were available. RESULTS: The mechanisms that presently support myopia regulation with CLs are based on the change of relative peripheral defocus and changing the foveal image quality signal to potentially interfere with the accommodative system. Ten clinical trials addressing myopia regulation with CLs were reviewed, including corneal refractive therapy (orthokeratology), peripheral gradient lenses, and bifocal (dual-focus) and multifocal lenses. CONCLUSIONS: CLs were reported to be well accepted, consistent, and safe methods to address myopia regulation in children. Corneal refractive therapy (orthokeratology) is so far the method with the largest demonstrated efficacy in myopia regulation across different ethnic groups. However, factors such as patient convenience, the degree of initial myopia, and non-CL treatments may also be considered. The combination of different strategies (i.e., central defocus, peripheral defocus, spectral filters, pharmaceutical delivery, and active lens-borne illumination) in a single device will present further testable hypotheses exploring how different mechanisms can reinforce or compete with each other to improve or reduce myopia regulation with CLs.

Changes in Peripheral Refractive Profile after Orthokeratology for Different Degrees of Myopia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of orthokeratology for different degrees of myopia correction in the relative location of tangential (F(T)) and sagittal (F(S)) power errors across the central 70° of the visual field in the horizontal meridian. METHODS: Thirty-four right eyes of 34 patients with a mean age of 25.2 ± 6.4 years were fitted with Paragon CRT (Mesa, AZ) rigid gas permeable contact lenses to treat myopia (-2.15 ± 1.26D, range: -0.88 to -5.25D). Axial and peripheral refraction were measured along the central 70° of the horizontal visual field with the Grand Seiko WAM5500 open-field auto-refractor. Spherical equivalent (M), as well as tangential (FT) and sagittal power errors (FS) were obtained. Analysis was stratified in three groups according to baseline spherical equivalent: Group 1 [M(Baseline) = -0.88 to -1.50D; n = 11], Group 2 [M(Baseline) = -1.51 to -2.49D; n = 11], and Group 3 [M(Baseline) = -2.50 to -5.25D; n = 12]. RESULTS: Spherical equivalent was significantly more myopic after treatment beyond the central 40° of the visual field (p < 0.001). FT became significantly more myopic for all groups in the nasal and temporal retina with 25° (p ≤ 0.017), 30° (p ≤ 0.007) and 35° (p ≤ 0.004) of eye rotation. Myopic change in FS was less consistent, achieving only statistical significance for all groups at 35° in the nasal and temporal retina (p ≤ 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Orthokeratology changes significantly FT in the myopic direction beyond the central 40° of the visual field for all degrees of myopia. Changes induced by orthokeratology in relative peripheral M, FT and FS with 35° of eye rotation were significantly correlated with axial myopia at baseline.

Peripheral refraction with eye and head rotation with contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of eye and head rotation in the measurement of peripheral refraction with an open-field autorefractometer in myopic eyes wearing two different center-distance designs of multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs). METHODS: Nineteen right eyes from 19 myopic patients (average central M ± SD = -2.67 ± 1.66 D) aged 20-27 years (mean ± SD = 23.2 ± 3.3 years) were evaluated using a Grand-Seiko autorefractometer. Patients were fitted with one multifocal aspheric center-distance contact lens (Biofinity Multifocal D(®)) and with one multi-concentric MFCL (Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia). Axial and peripheral refraction were evaluated by eye rotation and by head rotation under naked eye condition and with each MFCL fitted randomly and in independent sessions. RESULTS: For the naked eye, refractive pattern (M, J0 and J45) across the central 60° of the horizontal visual field values did not show significant changes measured by rotating the eye or rotating the head (p > 0.05). Similar results were obtained wearing the Biofinity D, for both testing methods, no obtaining significant differences to M, J0 and J45 values (p > 0.05). For Acuvue Oasys for presbyopia, also no differences were found when comparing measurements obtained by eye and head rotation (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis did not showed a significant interaction between testing method and lens type neither with measuring locations (MANOVA, p > 0.05). There were significant differences in M and J0 values between naked eyes and each MFCL. CONCLUSION: Measurements of peripheral refraction by rotating the eye or rotating the head in myopic patients wearing dominant design or multi-concentric multifocal silicone hydrogel contact lens are comparable.

Adaptation to multifocal and monovision contact lens correction.

PURPOSE: To compare visual performance with the Biofinity multifocal (MF) contact lens with monovision (MV) with the Biofinity single-vision contact lens. METHODS: A crossover study of 20 presbyopic patients was conducted. Patients were randomized first into either an MF or an MV lens for 15 days for each modality, with a washout period between each lens type. Measurements included monocular and binocular high- and low-contrast logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity (VA) at distance and near visions, binocular distance contrast sensitivity function, and near stereoacuity. RESULTS: At 15 days, patients lost fewer than two letters (half a line of VA) of binocular distance and near VA, with the MF and MV lens under high- and low-contrast conditions (P > 0.05 for both comparisons). No statistically significant differences were seen in binocular VA at near or distance with either lens. However, the monocular distance VA improved significantly in the nondominant eye, with the MF lens by one line over the 15-day period under high-contrast (P = 0.023) and low-contrast (P = 0.035) conditions; this effect was not seen with the MV lens. Contrast sensitivity function was within the normal limits with both lenses. The stereoacuity was significantly (P < 0.01) better with MF than with MV. CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal contact lens correction provided satisfactory levels of VA comparable with MV without compromising stereoacuity in this crossover study. The near vision significantly improved in the dominant eye, and the distance vision improved in the nondominant eye from 1 to 15 days with the MF lens, suggesting that patients adapted to the multifocality overtime, whereas this was not true for MV.