June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Comparing distance-center and near-center multifocal soft contact lenses for myopia control
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sarah Singh
    Vision Science, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States
  • Emmy Tian
    Vision Science, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Sarah Singh CooperVision Specialty Eye Care, Euclid Systems, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Emmy Tian None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 260 – A0114. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Sarah Singh, Emmy Tian; Comparing distance-center and near-center multifocal soft contact lenses for myopia control. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):260 – A0114.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Studies have shown that multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) are effective in slowing myopia progression. While distance-center (DC) lenses are used more commonly and have been investigated in multi-center clinical trials, near-center (NC) lenses have not, despite having more commercially available and daily disposable options. This retrospective study was designed to compare the myopia controlling effect of DC and NC lenses.

Methods : A retrospective analysis of patient data from the UC Berkeley Myopia Control Clinic, captured between 2013 and 2019, was performed to compare rates of myopia progression between patients using NC and DC MFSCLs. Participants had between -0.25D and -6.00D spherical equivalent refraction at baseline and were patients in the clinic for at least 4 months. We included participants that had < 1.50D of anisometropia and < -1.75D of cylinder at any axis. Patients were excluded if they were concurrently using another method of myopia control, such as topical atropine. Additional exclusion criteria were a strabismus observed during a visit in clinic, history of amblyopia, or pathology such as retinopathy of prematurity. Myopia progression rates were estimated using linear regression of autorefraction measurements.

Results : 56 DC and 24 NC subjects were analyzed. There was no significant difference between the right and left eyes, so only right eye data is reported. At baseline, mean [SD] age was 10.9 [2.6] for the DC group and 11.3 [2.2] for the NC group. 32 [54.1%] were female in the DC group, and 13 [54.2%] in the NC group. After treatment, the estimated monthly progression rates were -0.032 D/month (95% CI, -0.054 to -0.0095, SD 0.082) for the DC group and -0.054 D/month (95% CI, -0.090 to -0.018, SD 0.017) for the NC group. There was no significant difference (p = 0.2859) between monthly progression rates between the two groups, which can be extrapolated to annual progression rates of (-0.032 x 12) = 0.38 D/year for the DC group and (-0.054x12) = 0.65 D/year for the NC group.

Conclusions : NC and DC MFSCLs slow myopia progression at a similar rate. With more commercially available and daily disposable options, near center lenses could be considered to slow progression in young myopic patients. While the exact mechanism of how MFSCLs slow myopia progression is unknown, these results suggest that competing hyperopic and myopic defocus across the entire retina is important.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×