June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Visual Performance of S.T.O.P® contact lenses compared to MiSight
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jennie Diec
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
  • Daniel Tilia
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Klaus Ehrmann
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Cathleen Fedtke
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Fabian Conrad
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Richard Wu
    Brighten Optix Corporation, Taipei City, Taiwan
  • Ravi C Bakaraju
    nthalmic Pty Ltd, Botany, New South Wales, Australia
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Jennie Diec Brighten Optix Corporation, Code F (Financial Support); Daniel Tilia Brighten Optix Corporation, Code F (Financial Support); Klaus Ehrmann Brighten Optix Corporation, Code F (Financial Support), WO/2021/159169, Nthalmic Holding Pty Ltd, Brighten Optix Corporation, Code P (Patent), WO/2021/159164, Nthalmic Holding Pty Ltd, Brighten Optix Corporation, Code P (Patent); Cathleen Fedtke Brighten Optix Corporation, Code F (Financial Support); Fabian Conrad Brighten Optix Corporation, Code F (Financial Support); Richard Wu Brighten Optix Corporation, Code E (Employment), WO/2021/159164, Nthalmic Holding Pty Ltd, Brighten Optix Corporation, Code P (Patent); Ravi Bakaraju Brighten Optix Corporation, Code F (Financial Support), WO/2021/159169, Nthalmic Holding Pty Ltd, Brighten Optix Corporation, Code P (Patent), WO/2021/159164, Nthalmic Holding Pty Ltd, Brighten Optix Corporation, Code P (Patent)
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 534 – A0232. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jennie Diec, Daniel Tilia, Klaus Ehrmann, Cathleen Fedtke, Fabian Conrad, Richard Wu, Ravi C Bakaraju; Visual Performance of S.T.O.P® contact lenses compared to MiSight. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):534 – A0232.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the visual performance of Spatio-Temporal Optical Phase (S.T.O.P®) contact lenses (CL) against MiSight® (MS) in myopic young adults. S.T.O.P CL feature rotationally asymmetric power maps, designed with meridionally and azimuthally varying power distributions, combined with a peripheral carrier configured with rotation assisting features. The resulting dynamic optical signal on the retina may decelerate the rate of myopia progression and minimise the decay of treatment effect found in options which provide a relatively static optical signal.

Methods : Prospective, randomized, single-masked (participant), cross-over trial where participants aged 18-39 years wore MS and two S.T.O.P designs (F2 and DT), each for a minimum of 5 days at 6 hours/day, daily wear, with CLEARCARE disinfection. Following CL wear, visual performance was assessed with subjective questionnaire (0-100 scale) for clarity of vision and ghosting (distance, intermediate, near), driving vision, overall vision satisfaction and comfort. Willingness to purchase was assessed with a binary Yes/No response. High and low contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) were measured monocularly and binocularly at 6m. HCVA was also measured binocularly at 70, 50 and 40cm. Differences between designs were assessed using linear mixed model, a Bonferroni correction was applied where applicable, and significance was set at 5%.

Results : F2 was better than MS for clarity of vision at intermediate (71±18 vs. 61±24, p<0.001) and near (78±16 vs. 64±28, p<0.001) while MS was better than DT at near (64±28 vs. 56±26, p<0.001). F2 was better for ghosting than MS (79±24 vs. 64±30, p<0.001), and the difference was independent of distance (p=0.13). There were no differences between designs for driving vision, comfort, overall vision satisfaction, or willingness to purchase (p>0.06).
MS was better than F2 and DT for monocular and binocular HCVA at 6m (mean difference [MD]≤ 2 letters; p≤0.001 and ≤0.002, respectively) and binocular HCVA at 50cm (MD≤2 letters, p≤0.02). There was no difference between designs for LCVA (p>0.07).

Conclusions : Though MS was significantly better than both S.T.O.P designs for HCVA, the MD was only 2 letters. Overall, both S.T.O.P designs were comparable to MS for visual performance, with F2 outperforming MS in some aspects of subjective visual performance.

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.

×