Control Contact Lenses Research Articles

Refractive power profiles of commercially available soft multifocal contact lenses for myopia control.

Lens power profiles can provide valuable insights on the imposed optical defocus and visual experience of contact lens wearers, especially in the context of myopia control. This study measured the refractive power profiles of multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) currently used or that have the potential for use in myopia control using high spatial resolution aberrometry. The instrument's repeatability for determining MFCLs power profiles was also assessed. The power profiles of 10 MFCLs of various designs (centre-distance, centre-near and extended depth of focus) were measured using the Lambda-X NIMOEVO, a phase shifting Schlieren-based device. Power profiles were graphically expressed as measured power at each chord position and the maximum add power was calculated. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was expressed as the within-subject standard deviation at each chord position for a subset of five MFCLs. The measured distance powers differed from nominal powers for more than half of the MFCLs with a definable distance zone. There were variations in the chord position of the distance and near correction zones, rate of power transitions and calculated maximum add between the MFCLs which did not depend on lens design. For half of the MFCLs, the power profile shape was inconsistent between different nominal back vertex powers of the same design. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was dependent on the lens design, with designs featuring faster rates of power change exhibiting worse repeatability. Significant differences in MFCL power profiles were found which were not adequately represented in labelling. This is likely due to the small number of parameters used to define lens power characteristics. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of potential differences in power profiles between different MFCLs, which will impact the retinal defocus introduced during lens wear and the wearer's visual experience.

Subjective impressions with myopia control contact lenses versus single vision lenses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeTo gain insight into patients’ visual experiences and satisfaction when using different forms of myopia control lenses. MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for articles assessing subjective visual quality with myopia control lenses compared with single-vision lenses (SVLs) up to July 10, 2023. Eight-hundred-and-three articles were retrieved, reviewed and any questionnaire items on subjective impressions of lens wear were meta-analysed. Subgroup analyses were based on the magnitude of defocus (add power) of multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) and age groups. A random-effects model was employed for meta-analysis, and I2 statistic used to assess the statistical heterogeneity. ResultsNineteen articles fit the criteria, but only six articles involving MFSCLs had relevant data. MFSCLs were associated with lower subjective ratings of vision at different distances compared to SVLs (p < 0.001), but the differences were less than one unit. MFSCLs also yielded lower ratings when moving or walking and/or climbing stairs at −0.38 (−0.69 to −0.07, p = 0.02; I2 = 85 %, p < 0.001) and for subjective comfort (difference of −0.23, −0.41 to −0.05, p = 0.01; I2 = 63 %, p < 0.001). Subjective ratings for playing sports were not different between groups. Experience with MFSCLs was rated lower by young adults compared to children for all variables. In both children and young adults, ratings were lower with higher add compared to lower add MFSCLs. ConclusionAlthough subjective ratings for vision and comfort were lower with MFSCLs compared to SVLs, the difference was mostly less than one unit. Importantly, young adults rated their visual experience lower compared to children.

Can optical modelling predict clinical vision outcomes of myopia control contact lenses?

Can optical modelling predict clinical vision outcomes of myopia control contact lenses?

Six year cumulative treatment effect of MiSight® 1 day: A dual focus myopia control contact lens

Six year cumulative treatment effect of MiSight® 1 day: A dual focus myopia control contact lens

Enhancement of the Inner Foveal Response of Young Adults with Extended-Depth-of-Focus Contact Lens for Myopia Management.

Myopia management contact lenses have been shown to successfully decrease the rate of eye elongation in children by changing the peripheral refractive profile of the retina. Despite the efforts of the scientific community, the retinal response mechanism to defocus is still unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the local electrophysiological response of the retina with a myopia control contact lens (CL) compared to a single-vision CL of the same material. The retinal electrical activity and peripheral refraction of 16 eyes (16 subjects, 27.5 ± 5.7 years, 13 females and 3 males) with myopia between -0.75 D and -6.00 D (astigmatism < 1.00 D) were assessed with two CLs (Filcon 5B): a single-vision (SV) CL and an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) CL used for myopia management. The peripheral refraction was assessed with an open-field WAM-5500 auto-refractometer/keratometer in four meridians separated by 45° at 2.50 m distance. The global-flash multifocal electroretinogram (gf-mfERG) was recorded with the Reti-port/scan21 (Roland Consult) using a stimulus of 61 hexagons. The implicit time (in milliseconds) and response density (RD, in nV/deg2) of the direct (DC) and induced (IC) components were used for comparison between lenses in physiological pupil conditions. Although the EDOF decreased both the HCVA and the LCVA (one and two lines, respectively; p < 0.003), it still allowed a good VA. The EDOF lens induced a myopic shift in most retinal areas, with a higher and statistically significant effect on the nasal retina. No differences in the implicit times of the DC and IC components were observed between SV and EDOF. Compared with the SV, the EDOF lens showed a higher RD in the IC component in the foveal region (p = 0.032). In the remaining retinal areas, the EDOF evoked lower, non-statistically significant RD in both the DC and IC components. The EDOF myopia control CL enhanced the response of the inner layers of the fovea. This might suggest that, besides other mechanisms potentially involved, the central foveal retinal activity might be involved in the mechanism of myopia control with these lenses.

The role of a complete clinical examination for the safety of wearing contact lenses for myopia control (literature review)

Introduction. In the light of E.S. Avetisov’s hereditary-physiological theory of the pathogenesis of myopia and works devoted to the infl uence of peripheral myopic and hyperopic defocus on refraction, it makes sense to consider myopia as a multifactorial disease, so patients with myopia should receive comprehensive monitoring and treatment from related specialists. However, in practice, the general somatic status of patients and the presence of concomitant diseases in them are often not studied. Purpose: to analyze literature data on the impact of patients’ comorbidities on their wearing of contact lenses, to assess potential risk factors in such patients, and to draw the attention of an ophthalmologist to the importance of a complete clinical examination. Materials and methods. An analysis was made of publications on such resources as Pubmed, eLibrary, Medline over the past 30 years. 43 literature sources were analyzed, of which 37 were published no later than 10 years. Results. The authors of these publications describe how taking drugs from the group of retinoids, the presence of allergic conjunctivitis, thyroid diseases, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus, and the characteristics of the patient’s psycho-emotional state can infl uence the incidence of complications when using contact lenses. Conclusions. Taking into account numerous studies on the relationship between the progression of myopia and general somatic diseases, as well as the features of contact correction in childhood with comorbidities, we can say that a complete clinical examination of each patient is of high importance.

The influence of high additions in multifocal contact lenses for myopia control on binocular vision

The influence of high additions in multifocal contact lenses for myopia control on binocular vision

Retinal response to two commercially available contact lenses for myopia control

Aims/Purpose: Myopia control contact lenses (CLs) have shown optimistic results in eye growth retention in children. However, it is still unknown the retinal mechanisms of defocus detection. This study evaluated the electrophysiological response of the retina with two myopia control CLs, compared to single‐vision CLs.Methods: High‐contrast visual acuity (VA) and the retinal activity of 16 eyes (16 subjects, 27.5 ± 5.7 years, 12 female) with myopia (from −0.75 to −6.00 D, astigmatism &gt;1.00 D) were assessed with two single‐vision CLs (Omafilcon A – SVo – and Filcon 5B – SVf) and two myopia control CLs (dual‐focus – DF, Omafilcon A – and extended‐depth‐of‐focus – EDOF, Filcon 5B). The global‐flash multifocal electroretinogram (gf‐mfERG) was recorded with the Reti‐port/scan21 (Roland Consult) with a 61‐hexagons stimulus in physiological pupil conditions. The implicit time (milliseconds) and response density (nV/deg2) of the direct (DC) and induced (IC) components were compared between CLs of matching material.Results: All CLs showed similar VA (p &gt; 0.050). The implicit times did not show statistically significant differences. DF showed higher response density of both DC and IC components at all retinal areas, with a statistically significant difference in the parafoveal DC component (difference of 2.77 [6.23–1.44] nV/deg2, p = 0.038), compared with the SVo. EDOF showed a higher response density of about 13.31 [23.88–3.85] nV/deg2 (p = 0.032) in the foveal IC component, compared with the SVf. The remaining retinal areas did not show statistically significant differences.Conclusions: The retina seems to respond differently to distinct CL's optical designs. The two myopia control CLs increased the electrophysiological response of the retina, but with different effects, without affecting the implicit time of the response. Multifocal contact lenses with peripheral defocus induce different foveal and parafoveal activities that might be involved in the mechanism of myopia control.

Peripheral refraction and retinal activity with dual focus contact lenses for myopia control

Aims/Purpose: Contact lenses (CLs) for myopia control have shown optimistic eye growth retention in children but, the retinal mechanisms of defocus still unclear. This work evaluated the retinal response and peripheral refraction with a soft CL for myopia management in myopic eyes.Methods: The visual acuity (VA), peripheral refraction and the retinal electrical activity were obtained from sixteen myopic (between −0.75 D and − 6.00 D, astigmatism &gt;1.00 D) subjects (27.5 ± 5.7 years, 12 female), with two material‐matched CLs (Omafilcon A): a single‐vision CL (SV) and a myopia management dual‐focus CL (DF). Peripheral refraction was assessed with an open‐field autorefractometer (WAM‐5500, GrandSeiko Co. Lt) in four meridians separated by 45° at 2.50 meters distance. The global‐flash multifocal electroretinogram (gf‐mfERG) was recorded with the Reti‐port/scan21 (Roland Consult) using a stimulus of 61‐hexagons. The implicit time and response density (in nV/deg2) of the direct (DC) and induced (IC) components were analysed. Only the data of a single eye per subject was randomly used for analysis.Results: The two CLs designs showed similar VA (p &gt; 0.050). The DF induced a myopic shift of the SV peripheral refraction in most retinal eccentricities (p &lt; 0.050). There were no differences in the implicit times of the retinal response between CLs designs. The DF increased the response density of both DC and IC components at all retinal areas, with a statistically significant difference in the parafoveal DC component (median difference of 2.77 [6.23–1.44] nV/deg2, p = 0.038).Conclusions: The results showed that the retina responds differently to a SV and a DF CLs. The myopia management CL increased the electrophysiological response of the retina without affecting the time domain of the response. Besides other mechanisms potentially involved, the foveal and parafoveal retinal activities might be involved in the mechanism of myopia control with these lenses.

Effect of phospholipid‐eluting contact lens on dry eye in rabbit

Aims/Purpose: To investigate the effects of new phosphatidylcholine‐eluting contact lenses (PC‐CL) on dry eye in Rabbit.Methods: 18 New Zealand rabbits were used in this study. Meibomian gland orifices were electrocauterized in the dry eye group. PC‐CL were provided from Neo Vision (Yongin, Korea). Rabbits were fitted with control contact lens on one eye and 0.1% PC‐CL on the other eye or with 0.1% PC‐CL on one eye and 0.3% PC‐CL on the other eye. Tear break‐up time (TBUT), tear osmolarity, and corneal fluorescein staining score (FSS), central corneal thickness (CCT), and conjunctival histology were evaluated.Results: In both dry eye and non‐dry eye group, TBUT was longer and tear osmolarity was lower in 0.1% PC‐CL compared to control lens. Cornea was stained with fluorescein in dry eye group, but not in non‐dry eye group. CCT showed no difference in PC‐CL and control lens on both dry eye and non‐dry eye group. In dry eye group, goblet cell density tended to be slightly higher in PC‐CL compared to control. There was no significant difference in TBUT, tear osmolarity, CCT, FSS, and goblet cell density between 0.1% PC‐CL and 0.3% PC‐CL.Conclusions: PC‐CL stabilized tear film and lowered tear osmolarity in dry eye. Thus, it may reduce dry eye symptoms and contact lens complications in clinical practice.

Six-year cumulative treatment effect and treatment efficacy of a dual focus myopia control contact lens.

Accumulated axial growth observed during a 6-year clinical trial of a dual focus myopia control contact lens was used to explore different approaches to assess treatment efficacy. Axial length measurements from 170 eyes in a 6-year clinical trial of a dual focus myopia control lens (MiSight 1 day, CooperVision) were analysed. Treatment groups comprised one having undergone 6 years of treatment and the other (the initial control group) having 3 years of treatment after 3 years of wearing a single vision control lens. Efficacy was assessed by comparing accumulated ocular growth during treatment to that expected of untreated myopic and emmetropic eyes. The impact of treatment on delaying axial growth was quantified by comparing the increased time required to reach criterion growths for treated eyes and survivor analysis approaches. When compared to the predicted accumulated growth of untreated eyes, 6 years of treatment reduced growth by 0.52 mm, while 3 years of treatment initiated 3 years later reduced growth by 0.19 mm. Accumulated differences between the growth of treated and untreated myopic eyes ranged between 67% and 52% of the untreated myopic growth, and between 112% and 86% of the predicted difference in growth between untreated myopic and age-matched emmetropic eyes. Treated eyes took almost 4 years longer to reach their final accumulated growth than untreated eyes. Treatment increased the time to reach criterion growths by 2.3-2.7 times. Estimated growth of age-matched emmetropic and untreated myopic eyes provided evidence of an accumulated slowing in axial elongation of 0.52 mm over 6 years, and the treated growth remained close to that expected of emmetropic eyes. Six years of dual focus myopia control delayed the time to reach the final growth level by almost 4 years.

Quality of life after wearing multifocal contact lenses for myopia control for 2 weeks in the BLINK Study.

To validate Pediatric Refractive Error Profile 2 (PREP2) subscales that can be used to evaluate contact lens wearers and compare vision-specific quality of life measurements between children wearing multifocal and single vision contact lenses for 2 weeks. Two hundred and ninety-four myopic children aged 7-11 years (inclusive) were enrolled in the 3-year, double-masked Bifocal Lenses In Nearsighted Kids (BLINK) Study. Participants completed the PREP2 survey after having worn contact lenses for 2 weeks. The Vision, Symptoms, Activities and Overall PREP2 subscales were used to compare participants' subjective assessment while wearing +1.50 or +2.50 D add multifocal or single vision contact lenses. Rasch analysis was used to validate each subscale and to compare participants' subjective assessment of contact lens wear. Item fit to the Rasch model was good for all scales, with no individual items having infit mean square statistics outside the recommended range (0.7-1.3). Response category function was acceptable for all subscales, with ordered category thresholds. Measurement precision, assessed by the Rasch person reliability statistic, was less than ideal (≥0.8) for three of the subscales, but met the minimum acceptable standard of 0.5. Scores for the Vision subscale differed by treatment assignment (p = 0.03), indicating that participants with the highest add power reported statistically worse quality of vision, although the difference was only 3.9 units on a scale of 1-100. Girls reported fewer symptoms than boys (p = 0.006), but there were no other differences between boys and girls. Rasch analysis demonstrates that the PREP2 survey is a valid instrument for assessing refractive error-specific quality of life. These results suggest that vision-related quality of life is not meaningfully affected by 2 weeks of soft multifocal contact lens wear for myopia control.

Attitudes and knowledge of myopia management by Spanish optometrists

PurposeTo investigate the knowledge, training and clinical practice of Spanish optometrists about preventing and controlling myopia progression.MethodsA web-based questionnaire was distributed to Spanish optometrists through social networks, optometric professional bodies and one of the major Spanish optometrists' associations to assess practitioner perception, understanding, and self-reported clinical practice behavior related to myopia diagnosis and management.ResultsA total of 534 optometrists with a mean age of 40.8 ± 10.3 years completed the survey. Most respondents have been practicing optometry for more than 20 years (89.8%), report having actively treated childhood myopia (82.4%), and are very concerned about the increasing frequency of pediatric myopia in their daily practice (85.3%). Almost all of the respondents (97.3%) agreed that the efficacy of treatment is related to the age at which it is prescribed, and more than half (53.6%) considered a progression higher than − 0.50 and up to − 1.00D as the minimum necessary to consider a myopia management option. Respondents who reported actively managing childhood myopia considered orthokeratology, atropine and soft-defocus contact lenses the most effective myopia control interventions. However, the most frequently prescribed form of myopia correction by Spanish optometrists was single-vision spectacles, followed by orthokeratology and soft-defocus contact lenses.ConclusionsSpanish optometrists are very active in the management of myopia, especially by fitting orthokeratology lenses or dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control, but there is still potential for improvement in the methodology they follow for both the diagnosis and management of myopia.

Changes in Choroidal Thickness and Retinal Activity with a Myopia Control Contact Lens.

The axial elongation in myopia is associated with some structural and functional retinal changes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a contact lens (CL) intended for myopia control on the choroidal thickness (ChT) and the retinal electrical response. Ten myopic eyes (10 subjects, 18-35 years of age) with spherical equivalents from -0.75 to -6.00 diopters (D) were enrolled. The ChT at different eccentricities (3 mm temporal, 1.5 mm temporal, sub-foveal ChT, 1.5 mm nasal, and 3 mm nasal), the photopic 3.0 b-wave of ffERG and the PERG were recorded and compared with two material-matched contact lenses following 30 min of wear: a single-vision CL (SV) and a radial power gradient CL with +1.50 D addition (PG). Compared with the SV, the PG increased the ChT at all eccentricities, with statistically significant differences at 3.0 mm temporal (10.30 ± 11.51 µm, p = 0.020), in sub-foveal ChT (17.00 ± 20.01 µm, p = 0.025), and at 1.5 mm nasal (10.70 ± 14.50 µm, p = 0.044). The PG decreased significantly the SV amplitude of the ffERG photopic b-wave (11.80 (30.55) µV, p = 0.047), N35-P50 (0.90 (0.96) µV, p = 0.017), and P50-N95 (0.46 (2.50) µV, p = 0.047). The amplitude of the a-wave was negatively correlated with the ChT at 3.0T (r = -0.606, p = 0.038) and 1.5T (r = -0.748, p = 0.013), and the amplitude of the b-wave showed a negative correlation with the ChT at 1.5T (r = -0.693, p = 0.026). The PG increased the ChT in a similar magnitude observed in previous studies. These CLs attenuated the amplitude of the retinal response, possibly due to the combined effect of the induced peripheral defocus high-order aberrations impacting the central retinal image. The decrease in the response of bipolar and ganglion cells suggests a potential retrograde feedback signaling effect from the inner to outer retinal layers observed in previous studies.

Dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control modify central retinal electrophysiology in humans.

Dual-focus contact lenses create two focal planes, one providing a clear retinal image while the other imposes myopic defocus on the retina to slow myopia progression. This study used global-flash multifocal electroretinogram (gmfERG) response amplitudes to compare central versus peripheral retinal responses under dual-focus conditions and to assess the optimal degree of myopic defocus compared with a single-vision control lens. Twenty participants each underwent three gmfERG trials, wearing a spectacle correction over dual-focus contact lenses with plano central power and peripheral secondary focal powers of either +2.00D, +4.00D or a plano single-vision lens. We compared amplitudes and latencies of the gmfERG direct and induced components (DC and IC) within participants, between the three different contact lens powers and at different retinal eccentricities (gmfERG ring). We observed significant differences in the gmfERG responses between the single-vision and dual-focus contact lenses. Overall, DC amplitudes peaked between zero and +2.00D secondary power, while IC amplitudes were maximal between +2.00D and +4.00D. Compared with the single-vision control, the greatest increase in DC and IC amplitudes while wearing dual-focus lenses occurred within the central 10° of the retina. There was no interaction effect between gmfERG ring (eccentricity) and secondary power, and no difference in the latency of the gmfERG responses between different powers. We found that dual-focus contact lenses with a +2.00D secondary power are close to that expected to induce the greatest increase in gmfERG responses relative to a single-vision lens. Dual-focus lenses produced the highest DC and IC response amplitudes relative to a single-vision lens in the central 10° of the retina. This suggests that dual-focus contact lenses slow myopia progression by modifying central rather than peripheral retinal activity.

IMI-Global Trends in Myopia Management Attitudes and Strategies in Clinical Practice-2022 Update.

Surveys in 2015 and 2019 identified a high level of eye care practitioner concern/activity about myopia, but the majority still prescribed single vision interventions to young myopes. This research aimed to provide updated information. A self-administered, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in 13 languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy and adoption of available strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies. Of the 3195 respondents, practitioners' concern about the increasing frequency of pediatric myopia in their practices differed between continents (P < 0.001), being significantly higher in Asia (9.0 ± 1.5 of 10) than other continents (range 7.7-8.2; P ≤ 0.001). Overall, combination therapy was perceived by practitioners to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by orthokeratology and pharmaceutical approaches. The least effective perceived methods were single vision distance undercorrection, spectacles and contact lenses, as well as bifocal spectacles. Practitioners rated their activity in myopia control between (6.6 ± 2.9 in South America to 7.9 ± 1.2/2.2 in Australasia and Asia). Single-vision spectacles are still the most prescribed option for progressing young myopia (32.2%), but this has decreased since 2019, and myopia control spectacles (15.2%), myopia control contact lenses (8.7%) and combination therapy (4.0%) are growing in popularity. More practitioners across the globe are practicing myopia control, but there are still significant differences between and within continents. Practitioners reported that embracing myopia control enhanced patient loyalty, increasing practice revenue and improving job satisfaction.

Atropine-eluting silicone contact lenses for myopia control.

Myopia, also known as nearsightedness, is one of the prime reasons for vision impairment worldwide. Atropine in topical ophthalmic solutions (e.g., 0.01% atropine sulfate eye drops) is the primary medical treatment for controlling myopia, especially for pseudomyopia or true myopia in rapid progress. However, aqueous atropine solution is unstable and easily breaks down to tropic acid, which will result in vision blur. Drug-eluting contact lenses (CLs) have been explored as a potentially superior alternative to effectively control the drug release and improve the drug efficacy. In this work, an atropine-eluting contact lens was developed by encapsulating an atropine implant in a silicon-based contact lens, towards functioning in vision correction and controlling myopia. The safety and effectiveness of this atropine-eluting contact lens were verified with rabbit and guinea pig models. The results showed that the lenses reduced the side effects like mydriasis and no other adverse events were observed in rabbit eyes. More importantly, atropine-loaded lenses could effectively delay the progress of form-deprivation myopia with guinea pig eyes as the model. Thus, we concluded that atropine-eluting CLs prepared by implantation technology may be an option for the treatment of myopia.

Visual Quality Indicators with Multifocal and Dual-Focus Soft Contact Lenses for Myopia Control

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare visual quality indicators in eyes wearing multifocal center-distance, and dual-focus soft contact lenses that are specifically designed for the purpose of myopia progression management, as well as single-vision soft contact lenses. Material and Methods. Visual quality indicators of 34 eyes of healthy, young myopic adults ages 20 to 35 were determined. Non-cycloplegic measurements were conducted without contact lenses (baseline) and while subjects wore soft multi- focal center-distance soft contact lenses (ArtMost SoftOK SMR and SEED 1-day Pure UP Multistage daily disposable), dual-focus soft contact lenses (CooperVision MiSight 1 Day), and single-vision soft contact lenses (iLens Aqua Bi-weekly). In this study, the lenses were referred to as SoftOK, Pure UP, MiSight, and iLens. The measured and analyzed visual quality indicators included high-contrast distance and near visual acuity, stereopsis, accommodative amplitude, accommo- dative response, spherical aberration, and horizontal coma. Results. High-contrast distance and near visual acuities, accommodative responses, and stereopsis values achieved with the SoftOK, Pure UP, and MiSight contact lenses werecomparable to those achieved with the iLens single-vision soft contact lenses and to baseline values. Accommodative amplitude was slightly reduced with the MiSight contact lens and spherical aberration was significantly higher with the SoftOK lens compared to the other lenses. Both findings had statistical significance (P = 0.047 and P &lt; 0.001, respec- tively). Horizontal coma, most likely resulting from slight lens decentration, was higher and more variable with the SoftOK lens compared to the other lenses, although no statistical significance was determined. Conclusion. Dual-focus and multifocal center-distance soft contact lenses allow for good visual quality, especially clear vision at distance and near. Small differences in accommoda- tive amplitude and spherical aberration were found between lens designs, however the clinical impact requires further investigation. Keywords myopia management, soft multifocal contact lens, visual quality indicators, spherical aberration, accommodative amplitude

Comparing children's, teenagers' and young adults' subjective responses to myopia control contact lenses.

Myopia control (MC) studies in children link efficacy with subjective performance. There is little MC research in teenagers and young adults. This study compared subjective experience of MC contact lenses in different age groups. Data were retrospectively reviewed from two double-masked, bilateral wear, crossover contact lens clinical trials (myopia -0.75D to -3.50D and <1.00 DC; 9-35 years). Participants wore two novel lenses (MC lenses with relative peripheral plus [+1.50D and +2.50D]) and a single-vision (SV) control lens (Clariti® 1day) for 1 week each. All lenses were made from Somofilcon A material. Data collected included visual acuity (VA), wearing time, subjective ratings of comfort, distance and near vision clarity and overall vision. Generalised estimating equations with subject random intercepts and identity link functions were used in the analysis. A total of 31 participants (10 children, 11 teenagers and 10 adults) were included, with no difference between the age groups for VA with the dispensed lenses (p > 0.05). All groups could discriminate between the SV and MC lenses for vision (distance, near and overall) after 1 week (p < 0.05). There was no difference between groups for comfort or distance and near vision. Children rated the overall vision quality higher than teenagers and adults for both SV and MC lenses (p < 0.05), but there was no difference relative to the SV lens between groups (p > 0.50). Daily wear time was lowest for children for all lens types (all p < 0.02). Wear time was positively associated with ratings of overall vision quality for children and young adults (both p < 0.05). All age groups rated SV lenses higher than MC lenses. Subjective ratings of MC lenses appear similar between age groups relative to SV lenses. Wear time was lowest in children and was correlated with overall vision quality ratings in children and young adults.

Prescribing patterns of myopia control contact lenses among optometrists in Ireland.

This retrospective analysis of electronic medical record (EMR) data investigated the prescribing patterns of soft myopia control contact lens (MCCL) treatments since their introduction in Ireland in 2017. Anonymised EMR data were sourced from 33 optometry practices in Ireland from 2017 to 2021 to determine the number of practices prescribing MCCLs to myopic children 5-18 years old. In MCCL-prescribing practices, the proportion of contact lens wearing children fitted with MCCLs and the proportion of progressive (≤-0.25 D/year) myopic children fitted with MCCLs were determined. Logistic regression was used to determine which factors influenced the likelihood of being prescribed a MCCL. Overall, just 10 practices were found to prescribe MCCLs of any type. The Coopervision MiSight contact lens was used in 85% of all MCCL fittings with most other fits being off-label multifocals. The use of MCCLs rose from 3% of contact lens fits in 2017 to 27% in 2021. Children fitted with MCCLs were on average younger (12.2± 2.3 years vs. 15.4± 2.1 years) but more myopic (-3.46 ± 1.84 D vs. -3.03 ± 1.69 D) than those fitted with standard contact lenses. The most predictive factors for being fitted with MCCLs were year of examination (OR: 2.54, 95% CI: 2.13, 3.03), younger age (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.39, 1.64) and greater myopia (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.39). Clinician engagement in myopia management has increased in Ireland since the formal introduction of MCCLs, but more than two-thirds of practices included are yet to offer this form of myopia management. The proportion of children with progressive myopia that has been prescribed MCCLs has increased, but the majority of children are still managed for vision correction only. There is significant scope for improving the uptake of evidence-based myopia control treatments and for optimising the age and degree of myopia at which such interventions are initiated.