Contact lenses offer numerous functional, psychological and myopia controlling benefits for children. What should you do if a parent or patient says no to contact lenses for their child, and you consider it an ideal option? How can you approach communication to convey the safety and benefits?
After the 3-year MiSight 1 day clinical trial, the control group children were switched to MiSight. A ‘virtual control group’ mathematical model, previously published, was utilized to demonstrate a continued myopia control effect across six years, plus effectiveness of treatment for children who commenced wear at age 11-15 years.
The BLINK study found that +2.50 Add centre-distance multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) slowed myopia progression but the +1.50 Add didn’t. Further analysis indicates that increased peripheral defocus created by the +2.50 Add only accounted for around 15% of the myopia control effect, indicating other mechanisms are involved.
The newest myopia controlling spectacles can both correct and control myopia as effectively as contact lens options. How do Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segments (DIMS) and HIghly Aspherical Lenslet Target (H.A.L.T.) technology spectacle lenses work? Here we investigate and compare their design, presumed mechanism and comparative efficacy for myopia control, based on published research.
This study reports one year results from an ongoing randomized clinical trial examining spectacle lenses with highly aspherical lenslet (HAL) or slightly aspherical lenslet (SAL) technology. The findings showed the HAL lens controlled refractive and axial progression by 60-70% and SAL by 30-40% over the first 12 months.
Providing spectacle correction is one of the cornerstones of primary eye care, and myopia controlling spectacles can both correct and control myopia. Here we explore the current myopia controlling spectacle lenses which have or are being commercialized, for which peer-reviewed publications are available – their design, presumed mechanism and comparative efficacy.
This randomised trial demonstrated MiSight 1 day gives a quality of vision similar to a single vision lens for the wearer and can be dispensed according to non-cycloplegic refraction.
This study evaluates how orthok treatment zone diameter influences change in refraction and axial eye length over 1-year in children previously fit with orthok lenses of varying back optic zone diameter, to reveal that where treatment zone diameter was less than pupil diameter orthok’s myopia control efficacy appeared to be improved.
How can you tell if your myopia management strategy has been a success? Our new Myopia Profile ‘Managing Myopia Guidelines’ infographics translate research into practice, providing advice on gauging success by both refraction and axial length outcomes. Given that refraction is universally measured in clinical myopia practice, there is particular emphasis on understanding how much refraction change after a year of treatment indicates whether expected efficacy for that intervention has been attained.
Being able to assess myopia progression in a similar way to height and weight using growth curves is beneficial for both practitioners and patients as it provides a comparison against a calculated average, helping to predict future high myopes and track progression and control outcomes. How to growth charts from European and Asian studies compare? We explore the comparisons, advantages and disadvantages of using growth charts for axial length in myopia.
