Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 65, Issue 7
June 2024
Volume 65, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2024
Myopia in practice (MIP) study
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Shalu Pal
    Clinical Care, Dr. Shalu Pal & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Stephanie Fromstein
    Clinical Care, Dr. Shalu Pal & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Angela DiMarco
    Clinical Care, Toronto Eye Care, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Mira Acs
    Clinical Care, Toronto Eye Care, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Barbara Caffery
    Clinical Care, Toronto Eye Care, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Sarah Guthrie
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Stephanie Ramdass
    Clinical Care, eyecademy, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
  • Vishakha Thakrar
    Clinical Care, Vaughan Vision Centre, Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
  • Matthew Zeidenberg
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Deborah Jones
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    Centre for Eye & Vision Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • Amy Chow
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    Centre for Eye & Vision Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Shalu Pal Alcon, AOE, B&L, Blanchard, Boston Sight, CooperVision, EssilorLuxottica, GPLI, J&J Vision, InMode, Paragon, Thea, Sun Pharma, Code C (Consultant/Contractor), Eyeris, AI4Eyes, Code I (Personal Financial Interest); Stephanie Fromstein None; Angela DiMarco None; Mira Acs Alcon, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Barbara Caffery Visioneering Technologies Inc, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Sarah Guthrie None; Stephanie Ramdass None; Vishakha Thakrar J&J Vision Care, Hoya, B&L, Labtician, Thea, Sightglass, CooperVision, Sun Pharma, Myoptechs, Review of Myopia Management, Code C (Consultant/Contractor), Eyeris , Code I (Personal Financial Interest); Matthew Zeidenberg None; Deborah Jones CooperVision, Sightglass Vision, Essilor, Alcon, Hoya, Code C (Consultant/Contractor); Amy Chow None
  • Footnotes
    Support  This work was supported through funding provided by: Canadian Optometric Education Trust Fund (COETF) Johnson and Johnson Vision, CooperVision Inc, Hoya Vision Care Canada, EssilorLuxottica Canada, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and InnoHK
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 169. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Shalu Pal, Stephanie Fromstein, Angela DiMarco, Mira Acs, Barbara Caffery, Sarah Guthrie, Stephanie Ramdass, Vishakha Thakrar, Matthew Zeidenberg, Deborah Jones, Amy Chow; Myopia in practice (MIP) study. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):169.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To determine how optometrists in Ontario, Canada are managing myopic and pre-myopic pediatric patients over time.

Methods : This ongoing retrospective chart review included patients aged 6-10 with presenting refraction of ≤-0.50D (myopes) or ≤ +0.75D (pre-myopes) who had eye exams between 2017-2021 at optometry practices in Ontario. Up to five unique charts were selected for each age (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) and visit year (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) for each group (myopes, pre-myopes), for up to 250 files per practice. Demographics, refraction and prescribed interventions including: no prescription recommended, single vision (SV) correction (SV glasses or contact lenses (CLs)), spectacle bifocals/progressives, myopia control (MC) treatment (ortho-K, atropine, MC glasses, MC CLs), and lifestyle change discussions were recorded. Two-tailed independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to compare treatment rates across years.

Results : To date, 1,340 patient charts across 7 practices were analyzed. For myopes (n=516, 51% female), the most common initial management was SV correction in 2017 (73%) which persisted through 2021 (62%). Nevertheless, the prescribing of MC as an initial management increased from 2% to 20% over this time period. (Figure 1) Over the years, optometrists more frequently counsel patients about MC options for low-to-moderate myopia (mean±SD -2.69±1.41D in 2017 vs -1.97±1.12D in 2021, t87=2.1, p=.037). However, the refractive error at which MC is implemented remains unchanged over time (-2.61±2.02 in 2018 vs -3.12±1.68 in 2022; t30=0.71, p>0.05). Optometrists are most likely to implement MC between -2.00D to -2.99D (19%), and least likely for high myopia (0% at ≤-5.00D). For pre-myopes (n=824, 48% female), optometrists are more proactive at recommending lifestyle changes (2% in 2017 to 18% in 2021) (Figure 3) The refractive error at which lifestyle changes are recommended remains unchanged over the years (+0.20±0.15D; F4,41=1.38, p>.05).

Conclusions : Although prescribing SV correction remains the predominant choice for initial management of myopia, optometrists are increasingly recommending MC and intervening earlier at lower levels of myopia. Dispite these discussions, MC is implemented only for low-to-moderate myopia during this study. Clinical evidence of MC efficacy for high myopia is necessary to promote MC awareness among optometrists. Optometrists are more proactive in recommending lifestyle changes to delay myopia onset for pre-myopes.

This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.

 

 

×
×

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.

×