Current trends among pediatric ophthalmologists to decrease myopia progression-an international perspective

Benefits and risks of orthokeratology treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis reviews the evidence for the risks and benefits associated with orthokeratology (OK) treatment compared with other methods of myopia control in children and adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, Embase and Ovid was conducted from database inception to 22nd August 2021. Studies that reported on risks, visual and ocular biometric effects of OK in patients > 5 years of age with myopia (- 0.75 to - 6.00D) were included. Main outcomes are change in axial length and any adverse event.

RESULTS

Fourty-five papers were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality of data was variable and of moderate certainty, and selection bias likely skewed the results towards a relative benefit for OK. The rate of axial elongation in children was lower for OK treatment compared to other treatment modalities at one year (MD - 0.16 mm, 95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.07). Rate of change in axial length in children rebounded after OK discontinuation compared to participants who continued treatment (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.14). Adults and children wearing OK were up to 3.79 times more likely to experience an adverse event when compared with conventional contact lenses (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.24 to ll.), though this evidence base is underdeveloped and requires additional well-designed studies for substantial conclusions to be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

OK arrests myopia progression while in use, however, there remain unanswered questions about the optimal duration of treatment, discontinuation effects and long-term risk for adverse events.

Juvenile-onset myopia-who to treat and how to evaluate success

The risk of eye diseases such as myopic macular degeneration increases with the level of myopia, but there is no safe level of myopia and the burden of lower degrees of myopia remains considerable. Effective treatments are available that slow progression and thus limit the final degree of myopia. In this review, the rationale for slowing progression is summarized, and a case made for treating all myopic children. Measurement of refractive error and axial length is reviewed, stressing the precision of optical biometry, but also the need for cycloplegic autorefraction. The factors influencing progression are considered and the available tools for interpretation of progression rate are discussed. Finally, the need to set attainable treatment goals is emphasized.

Myopia progression after cessation of atropine in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To comprehensively assess rebound effects by comparing myopia progression during atropine treatment and after discontinuation. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to 20 September 2023, using the keywords "myopia," "rebound," and "discontinue." Language restrictions were not applied, and reference lists were scrutinized for relevant studies. Our study selection criteria focused on randomized control trials and interventional studies involving children with myopia, specifically those treated with atropine or combination therapies for a minimum of 6 months, followed by a cessation period of at least 1 month. The analysis centered on reporting annual rates of myopia progression, considering changes in spherical equivalent (SE) or axial length (AL). Data extraction was performed by three independent reviewers, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. A random-effects model was applied, and effect sizes were determined through weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals Our primary outcome was the evaluation of rebound effects on spherical equivalent or axial length. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on cessation and treatment durations, dosage levels, age, and baseline SE to provide a nuanced understanding of the data. Results: The analysis included 13 studies involving 2060 children. Rebound effects on SE were significantly higher at 6 months (WMD, 0.926 D/y; 95%CI, 0.288-1.563 D/y; p = .004) compared to 12 months (WMD, 0.268 D/y; 95%CI, 0.077-0.460 D/y; p = .006) after discontinuation of atropine. AL showed similar trends, with higher rebound effects at 6 months (WMD, 0.328 mm/y; 95%CI, 0.165-0.492 mm/y; p < .001) compared to 12 months (WMD, 0.121 mm/y; 95%CI, 0.02-0.217 mm/y; p = .014). Sensitivity analyses confirmed consistent results. Shorter treatment durations, younger age, and higher baseline SE levels were associated with more pronounced rebound effects. Transitioning or stepwise cessation still caused rebound effects but combining optical therapy with atropine seemed to prevent the rebound effects. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis highlights the temporal and dose-dependent rebound effects after discontinuing atropine. Individuals with shorter treatment durations, younger age, and higher baseline SE tend to experience more significant rebound effects. Further research on the rebound effect is warranted. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=463093], identifier [registration number].

Age-related results over 2 years of the multicenter Spanish study of atropine 0.01% in childhood myopia progression

To evaluate the age-related efficacy and safety of atropine 0.01% eye drops over 2 years for myopia control in a multicentric pediatric Spanish cohort. A non-controlled, interventional, prospective multicenter study was conducted as an extension of the Spanish Group of Atropine Treatment for Myopia Control Study (GTAM 1). Children aged 6-14 years with myopia from - 2.00 to - 6.00 D, astigmatism < 1.50 D and documented annual myopic progression of at least - 0.50 D under cycloplegic examination were recruited. From the original cohort of 105 participants, 92 children who had been receiving atropine 0.01% eye drops once nightly in each eye for 1 year continued their participation in this extended study (GTAM 2). All the patients underwent a standardized quarterly follow-up protocol, which included measurements of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), cycloplegic autorefraction, axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and pupil diameter. The study sample was divided into three age groups: 6-8, 9-11, and 12-14 years old. The mean change in cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) and axial length (AL) during the 24 months of follow-up was analyzed. Correlations between SE and AL, as well as the distribution of annual progression, were evaluated. Adverse effects were recorded using a specific questionnaire. Finally, 81 children completed the follow-up and were included in the analysis. Over the 2-year period, the mean changes in SE and AL were - 0.88 ± 0.60 D and 0.49 ± 0.25 mm, respectively. Additionally, 51 patients (63%) experienced SE annual progression lower than - 0.50 D. The correlation between the progression of SE and AL during the total period of treatment was mild (r = - 0.36; p < 0.001). There were no differences between the first and the second year of treatment in the progression of SE (- 0.42 ± 0.41 D versus - 0.45 ± 0.39 D; p = 0.69) or AL (0.25 ± 0.16 mm versus 0.23 ± 0.14 mm; p = 0.43). Older patients (12-14 years old) showed less AL progression than younger children (6-8 years old): 0.36 ± 0.18 mm versus 0.59 ± 0.30 mm; p = 0.01. Adverse effects were mild, infrequent, and decreased over time. On average, the myopia progression in control groups from other published biannual studies exceeded that observed in our study. Over 2 years, atropine 0.01% demonstrated a safe treatment for controlling myopia progression in a multicentric cohort of Spanish children. The effect remained stable during this period. Older patients exhibited a more favorable response in terms of AL enlargement. However, further studies are needed to investigate the age-related effect of low-dose atropine in the Caucasian population.

Relative peripheral hyperopia leads to greater short-term axial length growth in White children with myopia

PURPOSE

Controversy exists regarding the influence of peripheral visual experience on the onset and progression of childhood myopia. This longitudinal, observational study evaluated the relationship between relative peripheral refraction (RPR) and changes in refractive error and axial length (AL) over 12 months in White children aged 6-7 and 12-13 years with a range of baseline refractive errors.

METHODS

Cycloplegic baseline autorefraction at horizontal retinal eccentricities of 0° and ±30° were recorded with the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 while AL was measured using the Zeiss IOLMaster 700. Measurements were repeated after 12 months on a subgroup. Refractive data were transposed into power vectors as mean spherical equivalent (M), J0 and J45 . RPR was calculated by subtracting central from peripheral measurements. Participants were defined as myopic (M ≤ -0.50 D), premyopic (-0.50 D < M ≤ +0.75 D), emmetropic (+0.75 D < M < +2.00 D) or hyperopic (M ≥ +2.00 D).

RESULTS

Data were collected from 222 and 245 participants aged 6-7 and 12-13 years, respectively. Myopic eyes demonstrated, on average, more hyperopic RPR. Emmetropes and premyopes displayed emmetropic RPR, and hyperopes showed a myopic RPR. Fifty-six 6- to 7-year-olds and seventy 12- to 13-year-olds contributed 12-month repeated measures. Longitudinal data demonstrated a significant relationship between a more hyperopic RPR in the nasal retina and greater short-term axial elongation in teens with myopia at baseline (β = 0.69; p = 0.04). Each dioptre of relative peripheral hyperopia in the nasal retina was associated with an additional 0.10 mm (95% CI: 0.02-0.18 mm) annual increase in AL.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperopic RPR in the nasal retina of myopic children is indicative of increased risk for rapid axial elongation and may be a useful metric to support decision-making in myopia management.

Addition of Auricular Acupoint Stimulation to 0.01% Atropine for Myopia: 12-Month Results from a Randomized Trial

Introduction: A previous 6-month report showed that adjunctive auricular acupoint stimulation (AAS) slowed myopia progression compared with 0.01% atropine (0.01% A) alone. This 12-month report was to determine whether the antimyopic effect of AAS, when added to 0.01% A, continued beyond treatment cessation, and explore the mode of action of AAS from the accommodative response. Design and Interventions: One hundred four children were randomly assigned to either a 0.01% A group or a 0.01% A + AAS group. Participants in the 0.01% A + AAS group received AAS in addition to 0.01% A for 6 months, and then kept using 0.01% A for the following 6 months. Participants in the 0.01% A group only used 0.01% A. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER) from the baseline to the 12-month visit. Secondary outcomes included axial length (AL) and accommodative lag assessments. Results: The adjusted mean change from baseline to month 12 in the SER was -0.62 D for 0.01% A and -0.46 D for 0.01% A + AAS (difference, 0.16 D; p = 0.01), with a respective mean increase of 0.37 and 0.31 mm in AL (difference, -0.05 mm; p = 0.05). For the 5D near target, there was a reduction in the accommodative lag in children receiving add-on AAS relative to 0.01% A alone at 1 and 6 months (both p = 0.002). Conclusions: AAS treatment produced additional benefits >0.01% A in slowing myopia progression over the 12-month period, where the efficacy was sustained after the cessation of AAS. An effect of add-on AAS on reducing accommodative lag in response to 5D stimulus was found, but its role in mediating therapeutic response remained unclear. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number: ChiCTR1900021316.

Decision Behavior and Influential Factors of Spectacle Prescription for Schoolchildren in Taiwan

Purpose

The prevalence of children myopia in Taiwan is among the highest in the world. The study aimed to understand the status of the final prescription of the spectacle prescribed by the Taiwan optometrists when they conducted the visual inspection of elementary school, middle school and high school students, and to evaluate the influencing factors of their decision-making behavior.

Methods

Among the attendants of the continuing education course activities held by optometrist associations in Taiwan, an anonymous questionnaire survey was given on the spot to optometrists who have passed the national examination. This study received 442 questionnaire surveys, including 174 optometrists and 268 assistant optometrists. The data were analyzed by using chi-square test in IBM SPSS.

Results

There are statistically significant differences in the decision-making of spectacle prescription for myopia of -1.00D~-1.50D and -2.25D~-2.50D in the primary school stage between optometrists and assistant optometrists. There are also significant differences for myopia of -2.25D and above in the middle school students. By the time of high school, there are significant differences for myopia from -0.75D to -3.25D and above. The higher the grade, the greater the difference in the final prescription of the spectacles given. As for the judgment factors of the final prescription, only children among elementary school and junior high school show a statistically significant difference in professional judgment between optometrists and assistant optometrists. There is no significant difference in the judgment factors for high school children. Depending on the educational level of optometrists and assistant optometrists and their distribution area, the prescription decisions are also different.

Conclusion

The optometrists prefer to prescribe full correction for schoolchildren, while the assistant optometrists mostly prescribe under-correction in prescriptions for low-degree myopia and lower grades. Further investigation is needed to study its impact on children's visual health.

Low-Dose 0.01% Atropine Eye Drops vs Placebo for Myopia Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Controlling myopia progression is of interest worldwide. Low-dose atropine eye drops have slowed progression in children in East Asia.

Objective

To compare atropine, 0.01%, eye drops with placebo for slowing myopia progression in US children.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a randomized placebo-controlled, double-masked, clinical trial conducted from June 2018 to September 2022. Children aged 5 to 12 years were recruited from 12 community- and institution-based practices in the US. Participating children had low to moderate bilateral myopia (-1.00 diopters [D] to -6.00 D spherical equivalent refractive error [SER]).

Intervention

Eligible children were randomly assigned 2:1 to 1 eye drop of atropine, 0.01%, nightly or 1 drop of placebo. Treatment was for 24 months followed by 6 months of observation.

Main Outcome and Measures

Automated cycloplegic refraction was performed by masked examiners. The primary outcome was change in SER (mean of both eyes) from baseline to 24 months (receiving treatment); other outcomes included change in SER from baseline to 30 months (not receiving treatment) and change in axial length at both time points. Differences were calculated as atropine minus placebo.

Results

A total of 187 children (mean [SD] age, 10.1 [1.8] years; age range, 5.1-12.9 years; 101 female [54%]; 34 Black [18%], 20 East Asian [11%], 30 Hispanic or Latino [16%], 11 multiracial [6%], 6 West/South Asian [3%], 86 White [46%]) were included in the study. A total of 125 children (67%) received atropine, 0.01%, and 62 children (33%) received placebo. Follow-up was completed at 24 months by 119 of 125 children (95%) in the atropine group and 58 of 62 children (94%) in the placebo group. At 30 months, follow-up was completed by 118 of 125 children (94%) in the atropine group and 57 of 62 children (92%) in the placebo group. At the 24-month primary outcome visit, the adjusted mean (95% CI) change in SER from baseline was -0.82 (-0.96 to -0.68) D and -0.80 (-0.98 to -0.62) D in the atropine and placebo groups, respectively (adjusted difference = -0.02 D; 95% CI, -0.19 to +0.15 D; P = .83). At 30 months (6 months not receiving treatment), the adjusted difference in mean SER change from baseline was -0.04 D (95% CI, -0.25 to +0.17 D). Adjusted mean (95% CI) changes in axial length from baseline to 24 months were 0.44 (0.39-0.50) mm and 0.45 (0.37-0.52) mm in the atropine and placebo groups, respectively (adjusted difference = -0.002 mm; 95% CI, -0.106 to 0.102 mm). Adjusted difference in mean axial elongation from baseline to 30 months was +0.009 mm (95% CI, -0.115 to 0.134 mm).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of school-aged children in the US with low to moderate myopia, atropine, 0.01%, eye drops administered nightly when compared with placebo did not slow myopia progression or axial elongation. These results do not support use of atropine, 0.01%, eye drops to slow myopia progression or axial elongation in US children.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334253.

Compounded 0.01% Atropine-What's in the Bottle?

OBJECTIVE

To describe the labeling, packaging practices, and characteristics of compounded 0.01% ophthalmic atropine.

METHODS

A convenience sample of parents of children who had previously been prescribed low-concentration atropine for myopia management were randomized to obtain 0.01% atropine ophthalmic solution from one of nine compounding pharmacies. The products were analyzed for various important quality attributes. The main outcomes were labeling practices, concentration of atropine and degradant product tropic acid, pH, osmolarity, viscosity, and excipients in 0.01% atropine samples obtained from nine US compounding pharmacies.

RESULTS

Twenty-four samples from nine pharmacies were analyzed. The median bottle size was 10 mL (range 3.5-15 mL), and eight of nine pharmacies used clear plastic bottles. Storage recommendations varied and were evenly split between refrigeration (33%), room temperature (33%), and cool, dark, dry location (33%). Beyond use dates ranged from 7 to 175 days (median, 91 days). Median pH of samples was 7.1 (range, 5.5-7.8). Median measured concentration relative to the prescribed concentration was 93.3% (70.4%-104.1%). One quarter of samples were under the 90% minimum target concentration of 0.01%.

CONCLUSIONS

An inconsistent and wide variety of formulation and labeling practices exist for compounding 0.01% atropine prescribed to slow pediatric myopia progression.

Myopia progression risk assessment score (MPRAS): a promising new tool for risk stratification

Timely identification of individuals "at-risk" for myopia progression is the leading requisite for myopia practice as it aids in the decision of appropriate management. This study aimed to develop 'myopia progression risk assessment score' (MPRAS) based on multiple risk factors (10) to determine whether a myope is "at-risk" or "low-risk" for myopia progression. Two risk-score models (model-1: non-weightage, model-2: weightage) were developed. Ability of MPRAS to diagnose individual "at-risk" for myopia progression was compared against decision of five clinicians in 149 myopes, aged 6-29 years. Using model-1 (no-weightage), further 7 sub-models were created with varying number of risk factors in decreasing step-wise manner (1a: 10 factors to 1g: 4 factors). In random eye analysis for model-1, the highest Youden's J-index (0.63-0.65) led to the MPRAS cut-off score of 41.50-43.50 for 5 clinicians with a sensitivity ranging from 78 to 85% and specificity ranging from 79 to 87%. For this cut-off score, the mean area under the curve (AUC) between clinicians and the MPRAS model ranged from 0.89 to 0.90. Model-2 (weighted for few risk-factors) provided similar sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Sub-model analysis revealed greater AUC with high sensitivity (89%) and specificity (94%) in model-1g that has 4 risk factors compared to other sub-models (1a-1f). All the MPRAS models showed good agreement with the clinician's decision in identifying individuals "at-risk" for myopia progression.

Health-related quality of life for children using orthokeratology (OK), peripheral lenslet designed (PLD) and single-vision (SV) spectacles: based on Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions (CHU9D)

PURPOSE

This study investigated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among children with myopia who used orthokeratology (OK), peripheral lenslet designed (PLD), and single-vision (SV) spectacles.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted between February of 2021 and August of 2022. It involved 211, 231, and 206 respondents with OK, PLD, and SV spectacle lenses, respectively. The HRQoL was presented as utility values using a general preference-based Child Health Utility-nine Dimensions (CHU9D) questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analysis and nonparametric hypothesis testing were used to compare the HRQoL in the OK, PLD, and SV groups.

RESULTS

Of the 648 respondents, the average utility scores was 0.936 (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.929-0.943). Children who wore the PLD spectacles had a significantly higher utility scores (0.955, 95 % CI: 0.946-0.963) than those who wore the SV spectacles (0.926, 95 % CI: 0.913-0.939) and the OK lenses (0.925, 95 % CI: 0.913-0.937) (p < 0.01). The PLD spectacle wearers were less likely to be worried, sad, tired, or annoyed than those who wore OK and SV spectacles (P < 0.05). Self-reported improved eyesight and lessened eye pain and discomfort from myopia correction using PLD spectacles had higher utility values (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PLD spectacles had a significantly higher HRQoL than the OK and SV spectacles among children. Having better eyesight and less eye pain/discomfort from myopia correction could improve the HRQoL of children. This data indicates that PLD spectacles may be considered for myopia management in children and adolescents.

Prescribing patterns of myopia control contact lenses among optometrists in Ireland

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

The impact of the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic on childhood myopia control practice patterns among ophthalmologists-an international pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus council global perspective

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of myopia keeps increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to map the worldwide treatment preferences of ophthalmologists managing myopia control during the first wave of the pandemic.

METHODS

An online questionnaire inquiring about pharmacological and optical treatment patterns during the first half of 2020 was sent to pediatric ophthalmology as well as general ophthalmology memberships worldwide. The results among pediatric ophthalmologists were compared to a previous study we performed before the pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 2269 respondents from 94 countries were included. Most respondents were pediatric ophthalmologists (64.6%), followed by ophthalmologists from other subspecialties (32.3%). The preferred modality for all geographical regions was a combination therapy of pharmacological and optical treatments. When evaluated independently, the pharmacological treatment was more popular than the optical treatment in most regions other than East Asia (P < 0.001). Compared to a pre-pandemic questionnaire, the participation of pediatric ophthalmologists affiliated with non-university hospitals increased. Additionally, the prevalence of respondents utilizing either any type of pharmacological treatment and those that using only evidence-based treatments increased globally. Although a decline in the use of optical treatment was evident worldwide, the use of evidence-based optical treatments increased.

CONCLUSION

Ophthalmologists around the world preferred a combination therapy of pharmacological and optical treatments. More pediatric ophthalmologists treated myopia progression and preferred a better evidence-based approach to control myopia. These trends reflect a positive response and more awareness of the rising prevalence of myopia due to the increased burden of myopia imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strategies and attitudes on the management of myopia in clinical practice in Spain

OBJECTIVE

In 2019, an international survey was conducted to evaluate strategies and attitudes in the management of myopia in clinical practice worldwide. This study reports on the results found in Spain and how these results compare with those from other regions of the world.

METHODS

A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed to eye care professionals around the world through professional associations. The questions examined were based on the available strategies and their use.

RESULTS

A total of 173 Spanish optometrists, of the 1,336 practitioners from the five different continents who participated in the study, responded to the online survey. Spain, Asia and South America were found among the regions with the highest concern regarding the increased incidence of myopia (p ≤ 0.001). However, in these regions, the prescription of single-vision spectacles and single-vision contact lenses continues to be the main methods of visual correction prescribed to young myopic patients (p ≤ 0.001). Spanish practitioners, like those from other regions, considered orthokeratology to be the most effective treatment to control myopia progression (p ≤ 0.001). The major reasons why Spanish practitioners were not prescribing myopia control strategies were increased cost, inadequate information and unpredictable outcomes (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The uptake of myopia control methods by Spanish practitioners is relatively low, despite the increase in the prevalence of paediatric myopia as well as increased concern and perceived clinical activity in the area in recent years.

Compounding of Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Control

OBJECTIVES

Low-concentration atropine is commonly prescribed to slow myopia progression in children but is not Food and Drug Administration-approved for that indication and is only available in the United States from compounding pharmacies. The purpose of this study was to ascertain its reported compounding and labeling in the United States.

METHODS

US compounding pharmacies were identified through a survey of eye doctors, social media, conferences, and web search. Twenty-eight pharmacies were identified and contacted through telephone and asked a standard set of questions about their methods to compound and label low-concentration atropine.

RESULTS

Twenty-six pharmacies across 19 states provided responses, with 21 answering all nine items (81%) and a mean of 8.7 of nine responses. The most frequently reported bottle size was 5 mL (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.5-10). For storage, 10 pharmacies (38%) recommended refrigeration and 16 (62%) stated room temperature was sufficient. The median beyond-use date provided was 65 days (IQR: 45-158). For preparation, 12 pharmacies (50%) used commercially available 1% solution, 9 (38%) used powdered atropine, 2 (8%) used both, and 1 (4%) stated their approach was proprietary. For the added excipients, 11 (42%) used artificial tears only, 6 (23%) added 0.9% saline only, 7 (27%) used more than one ingredient, and 2 (8%) were proprietary. Only two pharmacies mentioned adding boric acid and two mentioned "pH-adjusted" saline.

CONCLUSIONS

There were a wide variety of formulation methods in the United States, which may affect atropine stability and potency. Similarly, there are a wide variety of storage and beyond-use recommendations. Further research is needed to assess how these variations may affect the efficacy and safety of low-concentration atropine and of myopia control.

Characteristics of responders to atropine 0.01% as treatment in Asian myopic children

Recently, low-concentration atropine (0.01%) has gained increased attention in controlling myopia progression with satisfying effects and minimal side effects. However, studies concerning responders to 0.01% atropine are limited. This retrospective observational cohort study aimed to determine the responder characteristics of 0.01% atropine in Asian children. One hundred forty children (aged between 3 and 15 years) receiving 0.01% atropine were analyzed for the factors influencing annual spherical equivalent changes (SE). The mean age was 9.13 (2.6) years, the mean baseline SE was - 1.56 (1.52) diopters (D), and the mean annual SE change was - 0.52 (0.49) D. A 58.63% responder rate (146/249) of myopic control was achieved with 0.01% atropine in our entire cohort under the criteria of less than 0.5 D of myopic progression annually. The subjects were stratified into 4 subgroups based on a cut-off point of baseline SE of - 1.5 D and baseline age of 9 years. The responder rate differed significantly with the highest being the youngest with the lowest myopia subgroups. Our results demonstrated that children with myopia better than - 1.5 D and younger than 9 years had the highest potential to achieve successful myopic control under 0.01% atropine therapy.

The Limited Value of Prior Change in Predicting Future Progression of Juvenile-onset Myopia

SIGNIFICANCE

Identifying children at highest risk for rapid myopia progression and/or rapid axial elongation could help prioritize who should receive clinical treatment or be enrolled in randomized clinical trials. Our models suggest that these goals are difficult to accomplish.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop models predicting future refractive error and axial length using children's baseline data and history of myopia progression and axial elongation.

METHODS

Models predicting refractive error and axial length were created using randomly assigned training and test data sets from 916 myopic participants in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study. Subjects were 7 to 14 years of age at study entry with three consecutive annual visits that included cycloplegic A-scan ultrasound and autorefraction. The effect of adding prior change in axial length and refractive error was evaluated for each model.

RESULTS

Age, ethnicity, and greater myopia were significant predictors of future refractive error and axial length, whereas prior progression or elongation, near work, time outdoors, and parental myopia were not. The 95% limits for the difference between actual and predicted change were ±0.22 D and ±0.14 mm without prior change data compared with ±0.26 D and ±0.16 mm with prior change data. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying fast progressors were between 60.8 and 63.2%, respectively, when the cut points were close to the sample average. Positive predictive value and sample yield were even lower when the cut points were more extreme.

CONCLUSIONS

Young, more myopic Asian American children in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study were the most likely to progress rapidly. Clinical trials should expect average progression rates that reflect sample demographics and may have difficulty recruiting generalizable samples that progress faster than that average. Knowing progression or elongation history does not seem to help the clinical decision regarding initiating myopia control.

The impact of spectacle lenses for myopia control on visual functions

Purpose

Spectacle lenses containing multiple small peripheral elements have been developed for myopia control in children. It is important that their effect on vision be quantified by (i) fixation through the peripheral portion, thereby using foveal vision and (ii) by fixation through the central portion and presentation of peripheral targets.

Methods

The above approaches were used in five studies to evaluate two novel spectacle lens designs: spectacle lenses with Highly Aspherical Lenslets (HAL) and Slightly Aspherical Lenslets (SAL). A single vision lens served as a control. Visually normal adults participated in each study. The first two studies had subjects fixate through the periphery of the lenses. High and low (10%) contrast visual acuity was measured with the Freiburg Vision Test and reading speed for high and low contrast words measured with a sentence generator. The other three studies assessed peripheral vision while subjects fixated through the central portion of the lens. Peripheral contrast sensitivity was measured using two cycles per degree drifting Gabor stimuli. Peripheral motion perception was further evaluated using random dot stimuli. Finally, attention was measured using an established test of useful field of view with three levels of complexity.

Results

The periphery of the HAL lens significantly reduced low contrast visual acuity, but not high contrast visual acuity, while the effect of the SAL lens was not significant for either. Neither test lens affected reading speed for high contrast words, but the HAL lens significantly affected performance for low contrast words. Neither test lens affected peripheral motion perception or useful field of view.

Conclusions

Low contrast visual acuity and reading was slightly reduced while high contrast visual acuity was unaffected when fixating through the periphery of the novel lens designs. None of the peripheral measures of vision was affected by the novel lens designs.

Stepwise low concentration atropine for myopic control: a 10-year cohort study

The aim of this study was to analyze changes in refraction and evaluate the variables in school children who received atropine as myopic control for 10 years. Low-concentration atropine (0.05%) was prescribed initially, and the dose was increased in a stepwise manner if rapid myopic progression (≥ 0.5D per half year) was noted during the regular follow-up visit. 23 children with a mean age of 6.96 ± 1.07 years were included. The initial spherical equivalent was − 1.25 ± 0.84 D. The overall mean myopic progression was − 0.30 ± 0.27 D/year. Younger initial age, female, higher initial spherical equivalent and the need of higher concentration of atropine were found to be risk factors for myopic progression in multivariate mixed-effect analysis (p = 0.013, 0.017, 0.024 and 0.014). Children who kept using a lower concentration of atropine (≤ 0.1%) tended to have slower myopic progression throughout the 10-year course than those who shifted to higher concentrations (> 0.1%) (p ≤ 0.001). Stepwise low concentration of atropine might be effective for long-term myopic control in school students. Those who had poor response to lower concentration of atropine may have the risk of faster progression, even with high concentration of atropine. Additional or alternative treatment might be considered.

COVID-19 Home Quarantine Accelerated the Progression of Myopia in Children Aged 7 to 12 Years in China

Purpose

To investigate the effect of home quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic on myopia progression in children and its associated factors.

Methods

Myopic children aged 7 to 12 years with regular follow-up visits every half a year from April 2019 to May 2020 were included. Cycloplegic refraction was measured at baseline and at two follow-up visits. The first follow-up visit (visit 1) was conducted before the COVID-19 home quarantine, whereas the second (visit 2) was four months after the home quarantine. Myopia progression at visits 1 and 2 were compared. Factors associated with changes in myopia progression were tested with a multiple regression analysis.

Results

In total, 201 myopic children were enrolled. There was a significantly greater change in spherical equivalent at visit 2 (−0.98 ± 0.52 D) than at visit 1 (−0.39 ± 0.58 D; P < 0.001). Students were reported to have spent more time on digital devices for online learning (P < 0.001) and less time on outdoor activities (P < 0.001) at visit 2 than at visit 1. Children using television and projectors had significantly less myopic shift than those using tablets and mobile phones (P < 0.001). More time spent on digital screens (β = 0.211, P < 0.001), but not less time on outdoor activities (β = −0.106, P = 0.110), was associated with greater myopia progression at visit 2.

Conclusions

Changes in behavior and myopic progression were found during the COVID-19 home quarantine. Myopic progression was associated with digital screen use for online learning, but not time spent on outdoor activities. The projector and television could be better choices for online learning.

The Effects of 0.01% Atropine on Adult Myopes' Contrast Sensitivity

PURPOSE

Atropine at a low concentration is considered a safe and effective treatment to mitigate myopia progression. However, the potential unwanted side effects of administering atropine at a low dose on visual functions other than best corrected visual acuity has not been investigated. In this study, we investigate the short-term (12,16, and 20 h) and long-term (1, 2, and 4 weeks) effects of 0.01% atropine (i.e., 0.1 mg/ml) on contrast sensitivity (CS) in patients with myopia.

METHODS

Thirty adults (23.33 ± 2.93 years old) with myopia between -1.00 and -6.00 diopters (D), astigmatism of -1.50 D or less, and anisometropia of 1.00 D or less, participated in this prospective, masked, placebo-controlled, randomized study. The participants were randomly assigned to receive 0.01% atropine or polyvinyl alcohol eye drops once nightly to both eyes for four weeks. CS was measured binocularly at baseline and 12, 16, 20 h, 1, 2, and 4 weeks after the first use of the eye drops.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant differences of CS found between atropine and placebo-controlled groups in both short-term and long-term. There was no statistically significant interaction effect found between the time and group.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated no significant deleterious effect of 0.01% atropine on adult myopes' CS.

Efficacy in myopia control

There is rapidly expanding interest in interventions to slow myopia progression in children and teenagers, with the intent of reducing risk of myopia-associated complications later in life. Despite many publications dedicated to the topic, little attention has been devoted to understanding 'efficacy' in myopia control and its application. Treatment effect has been expressed in multiple ways, making comparison between therapies and prognosis for an individual patient difficult. Available efficacy data are generally limited to two to three years making long-term treatment effect uncertain. From an evidence-based perspective, efficacy projection should be conservative and not extend beyond that which has been empirically established. Using this principle, review of the literature, data from our own clinical studies, assessment of demonstrated myopia control treatments and allowance for the limitations and context of available data, we arrive at the following important interpretations: (i) axial elongation is the preferred endpoint for assessing myopic progression; (ii) there is insufficient evidence to suggest that faster progressors, or younger myopes, derive greater benefit from treatment; (iii) the initial rate of reduction of axial elongation by myopia control treatments is not sustained; (iv) consequently, using percentage reduction in progression as an index to describe treatment effect can be very misleading and (v) cumulative absolute reduction in axial elongation (CARE) emerges as a preferred efficacy metric; (vi) maximum CARE that has been measured for existing myopia control treatments is 0.44 mm (which equates to about 1 D); (vii) there is no apparent superior method of treatment, although commonly prescribed therapies such as 0.01% atropine and progressive addition spectacles lenses have not consistently provided clinically important effects; (viii) while different treatments have shown divergent efficacy in the first year, they have shown only small differences after this; (ix) rebound should be assumed until proven otherwise; (x) an illusion of inflated efficacy is created by measurement error in refraction, sample bias in only treating 'measured' fast progressors and regression to the mean; (xi) decision to treat should be based on age of onset (or refraction at a given age), not past progression; (xii) the decreased risk of complications later in life provided by even modest reductions in progression suggest treatment is advised for all young myopes and, because of limitations of available interventions, should be aggressive.

Is optometry ready for myopia control? Education and other barriers to the treatment of myopia

Background: With the increasing prevalence of myopia there is growing interest in active myopia control. However, the majority of progressive myopes are still prescribed single vision spectacles. This prospective study aims to elucidate the knowledge and attitudes of optometrists toward myopia control, and thereby identify perceived barriers to the implementation of a risk focussed model of myopia management.

Methods: A series of four focus group discussions were conducted involving optometrists in different settings and career stages.

Results: The key finding to emerge is a disconnect in myopia control knowledge and practices between academic optometrists, final year optometry students and clinicians in practice. Academic faculty believe the optometry curriculum should provide undergraduates with the clinical skills to practise myopia control, however, although students were knowledgeable in relation to myopia associated risk factors, some students had not yet undertaken any practical form of myopia control in their undergraduate degree. Furthermore, students may not receive hands-on myopia control experience during their supervised practice placement, as the majority of clinicians do not offer myopia control treatments, other than to communicate lifestyle advice to modify risk of myopia progression. Clinicians alluded to a lack of availability of myopia control interventions and identified a range of barriers relating to their training, clinical practice and public health challenges, financial, technological and other constraints that affect the implementation of such interventions.

Conclusion: It appears optometrists have to yet embrace myopia control as a core element of the clinical eye care service they provide. Education, training, finance, and time restrictions, as well as limited availability of myopia control therapies were among the main perceived barriers to myopia control. This study revealed a distinct need for alignment between optometric training and the public health need for effective myopia control.

Is optometry ready for myopia control? Education and other barriers to the treatment of myopia

Background: With the increasing prevalence of myopia there is growing interest in active myopia control. However, the majority of progressive myopes are still prescribed single vision spectacles. This prospective study aims to elucidate the knowledge and attitudes of optometrists toward myopia control, and thereby identify perceived barriers to the implementation of a risk focussed model of myopia management. Methods: A series of four focus group discussions were conducted involving optometrists in different settings and career stages. Results: The key finding to emerge is a disconnect in myopia control knowledge and practices between academic optometrists, final year optometry students and clinicians in practice. Academic faculty believe the optometry curriculum should provide undergraduates with the clinical skills to practise myopia control, however, although students were knowledgeable in relation to myopia associated risk factors, some students had not yet undertaken any practical form of myopia control in their undergraduate degree. Furthermore, students may not receive hands-on myopia control experience during their supervised practice placement, as the majority of clinicians do not offer myopia control treatments, other than to communicate lifestyle advice to modify risk of myopia progression. Clinicians alluded to a lack of availability of myopia control interventions and identified a range of barriers relating to their training, clinical practice and public health challenges, financial, technological and other constraints that affect the implementation of such interventions. Conclusion: It appears optometrists have to yet embrace myopia control as a core element of the clinical eye care service they provide. Education, training, finance, and time restrictions, as well as limited availability of myopia control therapies were among the main perceived barriers to myopia control. This study revealed a distinct need for alignment between optometric training and the public health need for effective myopia control.

A review on the epidemiology of myopia in school children worldwide

Background

Due to high prevalence myopia has gained importance in epidemiological studies. Children with early onset are at particular risk of complications associated with myopia, as progression over time might result in high myopia and myopic macular degeneration. Both genetic and environmental factors play a role in the increasing prevalence of myopia. The aim of this study is to review the current literature on epidemiology and risk factors for myopia in school children (aged 6–19 years) around the world.

Main body

PubMed and Medline were searched for the following keywords: prevalence, incidence, myopia, refractive error, risk factors, children and visual impairment. English language articles published between Jan 2013 and Mar 2019 were included in the study. Studies were critically reviewed for study methodology and robustness of data. Eighty studies were included in this literature review.

Myopia prevalence remains higher in Asia (60%) compared with Europe (40%) using cycloplegic refraction examinations. Studies reporting on non-cycloplegic measurements show exceptionally high myopia prevalence rates in school children in East Asia (73%), and high rates in North America (42%). Low prevalence under 10% was described in African and South American children. In recent studies, risk factors for myopia in schoolchildren included low outdoor time and near work, dim light exposure, the use of LED lamps for homework, low sleeping hours, reading distance less than 25 cm and living in an urban environment.

Conclusion

Low levels of outdoor activity and near work are well-established risk factors for myopia; this review provides evidence on additional environmental risk factors. New epidemiological studies should be carried out on implementation of public health strategies to tackle and avoid myopia. As the myopia prevalence rates in non-cycloplegic studies are overestimated, we recommend considering only cycloplegic measurements.

Role of un-correction, under-correction and over-correction of myopia as a strategy for slowing myopic progression

This systematic review investigates the association between un-, under- and over-correction of myopic refractive error and myopia progression in children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age). The literature search included three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]), and reference lists of retrieved studies in any language. Eight prospective cohort studies and one retrospective analysis of clinical data provided comparison data on un- and under-correction of myopia versus full-correction of myopia; however, the quality of studies and length of follow-up times varied. A forest plot showed no beneficial effect of under-correction with some studies finding an increase in myopia progression. While one study suggested that myopia progression is slower in an un-corrected cohort compared to those who are fully corrected, another study suggests the opposite. One study utilised anisomyopes to allow comparison of under-correction of one eye with full-correction of the fellow eye indicating that under-correction in one eye appears to slow the rate of myopia progression in that eye. Another study on full-correction only in one eye found that progression was faster in the un-corrected eye. No benefits of over-correction of myopia was found. The overall findings are equivocal with under-correction causing a faster rate of myopia progression. There is no strong evidence of benefits from un-correction, monovision or over-correction. Hence, current clinical advice advocates for the full-correction of myopia. Further studies are warranted to determine the level of myopia that can be left uncorrected without impacting on myopia progression and how this changes with time.

Global trends in myopia management attitudes and strategies in clinical practice - 2019 Update

PURPOSE

A survey in 2015 identified a high level of eye care practitioner concern about myopia with a reported moderately high level of activity, but the vast majority still prescribed single vision interventions to young myopes. This research aimed to update these findings 4 years later.

METHODS

A self-administrated, internet-based questionnaire was distributed in eight languages, through professional bodies to eye care practitioners globally. The questions examined: awareness of increasing myopia prevalence, perceived efficacy of available strategies and adoption levels of such strategies, and reasons for not adopting specific strategies.

RESULTS

Of the 1336 respondents, concern was highest (9.0 ± 1.6; p < 0.001) in Asia and lowest (7.6 ± 2.2; p < 0.001) in Australasia. Practitioners from Asia also considered their clinical practice of myopia control to be the most active (7.7 ± 2.3; p < 0.001), the North American practitioners being the least active (6.3 ± 2.9; p < 0.001). Orthokeratology was perceived to be the most effective method of myopia control, followed by pharmaceutical approaches and approved myopia control soft contact lenses (p < 0.001). Although significant intra-regional differences existed, overall, most practitioners did not consider single-vision distance under-correction to be an effective strategy for attenuating myopia progression (79.6 %), but prescribed single vision spectacles or contact lenses as the primary mode of correction for myopic patients (63.6 ± 21.8 %). The main justifications for their reluctance to prescribe alternatives to single vision refractive corrections were increased cost (20.6 %) and inadequate information (17.6 %).

CONCLUSIONS

While practitioner concern about myopia and the reported level of activity have increased over the last 4 years, the vast majority of eye care clinicians still prescribe single vision interventions to young myopes. With recent global consensus evidence-based guidelines having been published, it is hoped that this will inform the practice of myopia management in future.

Practice patterns to decrease myopia progression differ among paediatric ophthalmologists around the world

Introduction

Myopia is a worldwide epidemic. Plethora of treatments are offered to decrease myopia progression. In this study, we compared between different geographical areas worldwide the practice patterns used by paediatric ophthalmologists to decrease the progression of myopia.

Methods

Global responses to a questionnaire were analysed (n=794) for demographic variations. Pharmacological, optical and behavioural categories were defined as effective or ineffective based on the current scientific peer reviewed literature.

Results

Treatment rates varied significantly between geographical regions (mean 57%, range 39%–89%, p<0.001). Nearly all participants who treat myopia used at least one form of effective treatment, regardless of location (98%, p=0.16). Among those prescribing pharmacological treatments, European physicians offered the lowest rate of effective treatment compared with other regions (85% vs mean 97%). Rates of effective optical treatment varied significantly between locations (p<0.001), from 16% (Central-South America) to 56% (Far East). Most treating respondents advocated behavioural modifications (92%), between 87% (North America) and 100% (Central Asia). Nearly all respondents used combinations of treatment modalities (95%)—mostly pharmacological, optical and behavioural combination. However, combination rates varied significantly between regions (p<0.001).

Discussion

The utility of treatment to decrease myopia progression differs significantly across the world both in type, combination and efficacy.

Conclusion

Paediatric ophthalmologists involvement and proficiency in myopia progression treatment varies around the world. This may entail promoting continuous medical education and other incentives to increase the number and proficiency of paediatric ophthalmologist to have a more effective impact to control the myopia epidemic in children.

The influence of age, refractive error, visual demand and lighting conditions on accommodative ability in Malay children and adults

PURPOSE

Near work, accommodative inaccuracy and ambient lighting conditions have all been implicated in the development of myopia. However, differences in accommodative responses with age and refractive error under different visual conditions remain unclear. This study explores differences in accommodative ability and refractive error with exposure to differing ambient illumination and visual demands in Malay schoolchildren and adults.

METHODS

Sixty young adults (21-25 years) and 60 schoolchildren (8-12 years) were recruited. Accommodative lag and accommodative fluctuations at far (6 m) and near (25 cm) were measured using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor. The effects of mesopic room illumination on accommodation were also investigated.

RESULTS

Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that accommodative lag at far and near differed significantly between schoolchildren and young adults [F(1.219, 35.354) = 11.857, p < 0.05]. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction showed that at near, there was a greater lag in schoolchildren (0.486 ± 0.181 D) than young adults (0.259 ± 0.209 D, p < 0.05). Repeated-measures ANOVA also revealed that accommodative lag at near demands differed statistically between the non-myopic and myopic groups in young adults and schoolchildren [F(3.107, 31.431) = 12.187, p < 0.05]. Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction showed that accommodative lag at near was significantly greater in myopic schoolchildren (0.655 ± 0.198 D) than in non-myopic schoolchildren (0.202 ± 0.141 D, p < 0.05) and myopic young adults (0.316 ± 0.172 D, p < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between myopic young adults (0.316 ± 0.172 D) and non-myopic young adults (0.242 ± 0.126 D, p > 0.05). Accommodative lag and fluctuations were greater under mesopic room conditions for all ages [all p < 0.05].

CONCLUSION

Greater accommodative lag was found in myopes than in emmetropes, in schoolchildren than in adults, and under mesopic conditions than under photopic conditions. Accommodative fluctuations were greatest in myopes and in mesopic conditions. These results suggest that differences exist in the amount of blur experienced by myopes and non-myopes at different ages and under different lighting conditions.