A comparative study of visual function of young myopic adults wearing contact lenses vs. spectacles

IMI Impact of Myopia

The global burden of myopia is growing. Myopia affected nearly 30% of the world population in 2020 and this number is expected to rise to 50% by 2050. This review aims to analyze the impact of myopia on individuals and society; summarizing the evidence for recent research on the prevalence of myopia and high myopia, lifetime pathological manifestations of myopia, direct health expenditure, and indirect costs such as lost productivity and reduced quality of life (QOL). The principal trends are a rising prevalence of myopia and high myopia, with a disproportionately greater increase in the prevalence of high myopia. This forecasts a future increase in vision loss due to uncorrected myopia as well as high myopia-related complications such as myopic macular degeneration. QOL is affected for those with uncorrected myopia, high myopia, or complications of high myopia. Overall the current global cost estimates related to direct health expenditure and lost productivity are in the billions. Health expenditure is greater in adults, reflecting the added costs due to myopia-related complications. Unless the current trajectory for the rising prevalence of myopia and high myopia change, the costs will continue to grow. The past few decades have seen the emergence of several novel approaches to prevent and slow myopia. Further work is needed to understand the life-long impact of myopia on an individual and the cost-effectiveness of the various novel approaches in reducing the burden.

Revisiting the Robustness of Pentacam HR Indices Against Soft Contact Lens Wear

Purpose

To evaluate various selected Pentacam HR indices in a cohort of soft contact lens (SCL) wearers before and after SCL discontinuation.

Methods

Ninety right eyes of 90 SCL wearers (group 1) were compared to healthy controls (group 2). For group 1 eyes, Pentacam HR images were captured within one hour of SCL removal and after one month of discontinuation. The evaluated indices included curvature, elevation, and pachymetric parameters.

Results

Elevation indices and two pachymetric indices (central corneal thickness and thinnest corneal thickness) did not show significant differences, either between the two groups or in group 1 after SCL discontinuation. Some pachymetric indices (average and maximum corneal pachymetry progression indices, and maximum Ambrosio's relational thickness index) showed statistically significant (P-value <0.001), yet clinically irrelevant differences. Contrarily, changes in curvature indices were both statistically significant (P-value <0.001) and clinically relevant.

Conclusion

From a clinical point of view, many elevation and pachymetric indices are robust against SCL wear, and can be relied upon for corneal ectasia screening of SCL wearers, even without abstaining from wearing SCLs.

Patient-reported Outcomes for Assessment of Quality of Life in Refractive Error: A Systematic Review

SIGNIFICANCE

This review has identified the best existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments in refractive error. The article highlights the limitations of the existing instruments and discusses the way forward.

PURPOSE

A systematic review was conducted to identify the types of PROs used in refractive error, to determine the quality of the existing PRO instruments in terms of their psychometric properties, and to determine the limitations in the content of the existing PRO instruments.

METHODS

Articles describing a PRO instrument measuring 1 or more domains of quality of life in people with refractive error were identified by electronic searches on the MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The information on content development, psychometric properties, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of those PRO instruments was extracted from the selected articles. The analysis was done based on a comprehensive set of assessment criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight articles describing 47 PRO instruments in refractive error were included in the review. Most of the articles (99 [66.9%]) used refractive error-specific PRO instruments. The PRO instruments comprised 19 refractive, 12 vision but nonrefractive, and 16 generic PRO instruments. Only 17 PRO instruments were validated in refractive error populations; six of them were developed using Rasch analysis. None of the PRO instruments has items across all domains of quality of life. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction, the Quality of Vision, and the Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life have comparatively better quality with some limitations, compared with the other PRO instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

This review describes the PRO instruments and informs the choice of an appropriate measure in refractive error. We identified need of a comprehensive and scientifically robust refractive error-specific PRO instrument. Item banking and computer-adaptive testing system can be the way to provide such an instrument.