Peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles with single vision, bifocal and multifocal soft contact lenses

Refractive power profiles of commercially available soft multifocal contact lenses for myopia control

PURPOSE

Lens power profiles can provide valuable insights on the imposed optical defocus and visual experience of contact lens wearers, especially in the context of myopia control. This study measured the refractive power profiles of multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) currently used or that have the potential for use in myopia control using high spatial resolution aberrometry. The instrument's repeatability for determining MFCLs power profiles was also assessed.

METHOD

The power profiles of 10 MFCLs of various designs (centre-distance, centre-near and extended depth of focus) were measured using the Lambda-X NIMOEVO, a phase shifting Schlieren-based device. Power profiles were graphically expressed as measured power at each chord position and the maximum add power was calculated. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was expressed as the within-subject standard deviation at each chord position for a subset of five MFCLs.

RESULTS

The measured distance powers differed from nominal powers for more than half of the MFCLs with a definable distance zone. There were variations in the chord position of the distance and near correction zones, rate of power transitions and calculated maximum add between the MFCLs which did not depend on lens design. For half of the MFCLs, the power profile shape was inconsistent between different nominal back vertex powers of the same design. The repeatability of the NIMOEVO was dependent on the lens design, with designs featuring faster rates of power change exhibiting worse repeatability.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in MFCL power profiles were found which were not adequately represented in labelling. This is likely due to the small number of parameters used to define lens power characteristics. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of potential differences in power profiles between different MFCLs, which will impact the retinal defocus introduced during lens wear and the wearer's visual experience.

The effect of multifocal contact lenses on the dynamic accommodation step response

PURPOSE

To measure the dynamic accommodation response (AR) to step stimuli with and without multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), in emmetropes and myopes.

METHODS

Twenty-two adult subjects viewed alternating distance (0.25D) and near (3D) Maltese crosses placed in free space, through two contact lens types: single vision (SVCL) or centre-distance multifocal (MFCL; +2.50D add). The AR level was measured along with near to far (N-F) and far to near (F-N) step response characteristics: percentage of correct responses, magnitude, latency, peak velocity and duration of step response.

RESULTS

There was no difference between N-F and F-N responses, or between refractive groups in any aspect of the accommodation step response dynamics. The percentage of correct responses was unaffected by contact lens type. Through MFCLs, subjects demonstrated smaller magnitude, longer latency, shorter duration and slower peak velocity steps than through SVCLs. When viewing the near target, the AR through MFCLs was significantly lower than through SVCLs. When viewing the distance target with the MFCL, the focal points from rays travelling through the distance and near zones were approximately 0.004D behind and 2.50D in front of the retina, respectively. When viewing the near target, the respective values were approximately 1.89D behind and 0.61D in front of the retina.

CONCLUSION

The defocus error required for accommodation control appears not to be solely derived from the distance zone of the MFCL. This results in reduced performance in response to abruptly changing vergence stimuli; however, these errors were small and unlikely to impact everyday visual tasks. There was a decrease in ocular accommodation during near tasks, which has previously been correlated with a reduced myopic treatment response through these lenses. With MFCLs, the estimated dioptric myopic defocus was the largest when viewing a distant stimulus, supporting the hypothesis that the outdoors provides a beneficial visual environment to reduce myopia progression.

Visual Quality Assessment and Comparison of Monofocal and Multifocal Scleral Lens Designs: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To compare visual quality, contrast sensitivity, stereopsis, subjective vision, and comfort between monofocal and multifocal scleral lens (SL) designs.

METHODS

An experimental, cross over and short-term pilot study has been performed. Nineteen presbyopic patients (51.9±3.8 years) with regular corneas participated voluntarily in the study and Onefit MED monofocal and multifocal SL designs were fitted bilaterally. Subjective vision and comfort, contrast sensitivity function, stereopsis, high- and low-contrast visual acuity (VA) at 4 m and 40 cm under photopic and mesopic conditions, and defocus curves were measured. Data analysis was performed with nonparametric tests. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Mean addition power of the prescribed lenses was 1.72±0.38 diopters. Multifocal design showed a statistically significant improvement for intermediate and near vision in the defocus curve under photopic and mesopic conditions (P<0.05), however, worsening in stereopsis (P<0.05) and contrast sensitivity for high spatial frequencies (P<0.05). Distance visual acuity (VA) showed significantly lower values under mesopic conditions for high- and low-contrast tests (P<0.05), and on low-contrast test under photopic conditions (P<0.001) with the multifocal design.

CONCLUSION

Multifocal SLs showed better visual performance at intermediate and near distances without compromising distance vision under photopic conditions for a high-contrast test when compared with monofocal design.

Comparison of two different orthokeratology lenses and defocus incorporated soft contact (DISC) lens in controlling myopia progression

BACKGROUND

To compare axial elongation in 8-11-year-old myopes wearing orthokeratology (OK) lenses with different back optic zone diameters (BOZD), defocus incorporated soft contact (DISC) lenses, and single-vision soft contact lenses (SCLs).

METHODS

A total of 122 children (aged 8-11 years) with spherical equivalent refraction (SER) between - 1.00 D and - 4.00 D were enrolled in this prospective study and randomly assigned to four groups: 5.0 mm-BOZD OK, 6.2 mm-BOZD OK, DISC, and single-vision SCLs. Children in each group were further divided into subgroups stratified by the average baseline SER: low myopic eyes (SER: - 1.00 D to - 2.50 D) and moderate myopic eyes (SER: - 2.50 D and over). Axial length (AL) was measured at baseline and after one year.

RESULTS

The 5.0 mm-BOZD OK, 6.2 mm-BOZD OK, and DISC groups exhibited significantly slower AL elongation than the SCL group. The proportion of slow progressors (AL elongation ≤ 0.18 mm/year) in the first three groups was 42%, 23%, and 29%, respectively. Furthermore, one-year AL elongation was significantly smaller in the 5.0 mm-BOZD OK group compared with the 6.2 mm-BOZD OK group. Regardless of SER, children in the 5.0 mm-BOZD OK and DISC groups showed comparably slower AL elongation than those in the SCL group. However, fitting with 6.2 mm-BOZD OK lenses significantly retarded AL elongation in moderate myopic eyes, but not in low myopic eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 5.0 mm-BOZD OK lenses, 6.2 mm-BOZD OK lenses, and DISC lenses were effective in retarding AL elongation in 8-11-year-old myopes compared with single-vision SCLs, but for children with SER less than - 2.50 D, fitting with 5.0 mm-BOZD OK lenses and DISC lenses yielded better myopia control efficacy compared to wearing single-vision SCLs or 6.2 mm-BOZD OK lenses.

Visual Performance of Two Designs of Myopia Management Soft Contact Lenses Compared with a Monofocal One in Young Adults

Purpose

To compare the visual performance of two distinct types of soft contact lenses (CL) aimed at slowing down myopia progression with the performance of a monofocal soft CL.

Methods

In a prospective double-masked, crossover trial, 18 myopic adults (aged 18-30 years old) were fitted in a randomized order with three types of disposable CL: MiSightTM (dual-focus), MyloTM (extended depth of focus -EDOF-), and ClaritiTM (single distance vision). Measurements were taken after wearing the CL for five days with five days off in between at two different optometry centers. High contrast distance visual acuity (VA) with spectacles and for each of the different CL, subjective refraction, slit lamp exam, aberrometry, stereopsis, monocular and binocular amplitude of accommodation and accommodative facility, and horizontal phorias were measured.

Results

The high contrast distance VAwas better for the single vision CL compared to the myopia control CL. No significant differences were observed between the r two myopia control CL. The overall root mean square (RMS) was higher for the double focus CL (RMS = 1.18 ± 0.29 µm), followed by the EDOF CL (RMS = 0.76 ± 0.35 µm) and then the single vision CL (RMS = 0.50 ± 0.19 µm). The primary spherical aberration (SA) mean value was low for all of the three CL, without statistical differences among them. No other significant differences were detected.

Conclusion

The overall RMS resulted in a higher value for the dual-focus than the EDOF CL, but no differences in high contrast distance VA and binocularity were detected between them. The monofocal CL's performance was better than the myopia control CL.

Peripheral Refraction of Two Myopia Control Contact Lens Models in a Young Myopic Population

Peripheral refraction can lead to the development of myopia. The aim of this study was to compare relative peripheral refraction (RPR) in the same cohort of uncorrected (WCL) and corrected eyes with two different soft contact lenses (CL) designed for myopia control, and to analyze RPR depending on the patient’s refraction. A total of 228 myopic eyes (114 healthy adult subjects) (−0.25 D to −10.00 D) were included. Open-field autorefraction was used to measure on- and off- axis refractions when uncorrected and corrected with the two CLs (dual focus (DF) and extended depth of focus (EDOF)). The RPR was measured every 10° out to 30° in a temporal-nasal orientation and analyzed as a component of the power vector (M). The average RPR for all subjects was hyperopic when WCL and when corrected with EDOF CL design, but changed to a myopic RPR when corrected with DF design. Significant differences were found between RPR curves with both CLs in all the eccentricities (Bonferroni correction p < 0.008, except 10°N). An incremental relationship between relative peripheral refraction at 30 degrees and myopia level was found. It is concluded that the two CLs work differently at the periphery in order to achieve myopia control.

Comparison of peripheral refraction and higher-order aberrations between orthokeratology and multifocal soft contact lens designed with highly addition

Purpose

To compare peripheral defocus, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and contrast visual acuity (CVA) in myopic children wearing orthokeratology (OK) lenses and multifocal soft contact lenses (MSCLs) designed with highly addition.

Methods

This is a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled study. Subjects at 8 to 13 years of age with spherical equivalent refraction from − 1.00 to − 5.00 dioptres (D) were included in the OK group (n = 30) and MSCL group (n = 23). Relative peripheral corneal defocus (RPCD) and relative peripheral refraction (RPR) were measured before and after wearing lenses. HOAs including spherical aberration (SA), coma, trefoil, and total HOAs, and high (100%) and low (10%) CVA were compared between the groups. Axial length (AL) was measured before and after wearing the lenses for 1 year.

Results

After wearing the lenses, subjects in the MSCL group had RPCD and RPR values similar to the OK group at the paracentral (within 2 mm of the cornea or 20° of the retina, all p > 0.05) but larger than the OK group at the periphery (all p < 0.05). All HOAs increased after wearing the lenses except the trefoil in the MSCL group (all p < 0.05). HOAs increased more in the OK group (all p < 0.05). The 100% and 10% CVAs were worse in the MSCL group (p = 0.02 and p = 0.004). After 1 year, AL elongation was 0.37 mm (SD = 0.16) in the MSCL group and 0.28 mm (0.16) in the OK group (p = 0.06).

Conclusion

MSCL produced larger myopic defocus at the periphery, increased less HOAs and had worse CVA than OK lens. The high addition of this MSCL did not result in better myopia control efficacy

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1800018564. Registered 25 September 2018; retrospectively registered, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=31376

The Effects of Center-near and Center-distance Multifocal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Defocus and Visual Acuity

SIGNIFICANCE

Multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) are being used clinically for myopia control. Center-distance designs caused myopic changes in defocus across the retina that varied by lens design, whereas the center-near design caused peripheral hyperopic changes. Multifocal lenses caused reductions in low-contrast vision that varied by lens design, affecting visual performance.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare changes in defocus with four MFCLs, three center-distance and one center-near.

METHODS

Two cohorts of 25 nonpresbyopic myopic adults were enrolled. The first cohort was fitted with Proclear D and Biofinity D MFCL (center-distance, +2.50 D add), and the second cohort was fitted with NaturalVue MFCL (center-distance) and Clariti 1-Day MFCL (center-near, high add), both in random order. Overrefraction was performed to maximize visual acuity. Cycloplegic autorefraction was performed with each lens and without a lens along the line of sight and at nasal and temporal retinal locations out to 40°. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVAs with post hoc t tests, when indicated.

RESULTS

Changes in defocus at each location differed between MFCL designs (lens by location; both, P < .001). Clariti 1-Day caused peripheral hyperopic retinal changes (40 and 30° nasal, and 20, 30, and 40° temporal; all, P < .05). NaturalVue MFCL caused myopic changes centrally and hyperopic changes at 40° nasal and 30° temporal (all, P < .05). The remaining center-distance designs caused myopic changes at multiple locations (all, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

After overrefraction, the center-near MFCL design caused hyperopic defocus at multiple peripheral locations, which is not hypothesized to slow myopia progression. NaturalVue MFCL caused myopic changes in defocus centrally but hyperopic changes in the far periphery. Biofinity D and Proclear D caused myopic changes in retinal defocus. Further work is warranted to determine whether defocus profile differences between the center-distance designs influence any slowing of myopia progression.

IMI Prevention of Myopia and Its Progression

The prevalence of myopia has markedly increased in East and Southeast Asia, and pathologic consequences of myopia, including myopic maculopathy and high myopia-associated optic neuropathy, are now some of the most common causes of irreversible blindness. Hence, strategies are warranted to reduce the prevalence of myopia and the progression to high myopia because this is the main modifiable risk factor for pathologic myopia. On the basis of published population-based and interventional studies, an important strategy to reduce the development of myopia is encouraging schoolchildren to spend more time outdoors. As compared with other measures, spending more time outdoors is the safest strategy and aligns with other existing health initiatives, such as obesity prevention, by promoting a healthier lifestyle for children and adolescents. Useful clinical measures to reduce or slow the progression of myopia include the daily application of low-dose atropine eye drops, in concentrations ranging between 0.01% and 0.05%, despite the side effects of a slightly reduced amplitude of accommodation, slight mydriasis, and risk of an allergic reaction; multifocal spectacle design; contact lenses that have power profiles that produce peripheral myopic defocus; and orthokeratology using corneal gas-permeable contact lenses that are designed to flatten the central cornea, leading to midperipheral steeping and peripheral myopic defocus, during overnight wear to eliminate daytime myopia. The risk-to-benefit ratio needs to be weighed up for the individual on the basis of their age, health, and lifestyle. The measures listed above are not mutually exclusive and are beginning to be examined in combination.

Tear film stability over a myopia control contact lens compared to a monofocal design

Clinical relevance: Tear film assessment is essential in contact lens wearers and it can improve the success rates of the fitting.Background: To compare the short-term effect of two contact lenses on pre-lens tear film stability and comfort: dual-focus contact lens (MiSight) and a monofocal contact lens (Proclear 1-day).Methods: This randomised, double-masked, crossover study was performed in twenty-eight healthy, myopic volunteers aged between 18 and 32 years (23.5 ± 4.1 years). Only one randomly chosen eye was assessed. Distance vision and refraction were evaluated at baseline. Each contact lens type (monofocal and dual-focus) was randomly fitted, always in both eyes. A visual analogue scale between 0 and 10 was used to assess general comfort, physical comfort, and visual comfort. Tear Film Surface Quality (TFSQ) index, TFSQ_area and auto Tear Break-Up Time were obtained using Medmont E-300 at baseline (naked eye condition) and 25 minutes after each contact lens insertion.Results: Refractive sphere and cylinder were, respectively, -1.36 ± 1.04 D (ranging from -6.00 to -0.25 D) and -0.23 ± 0.30 D (ranging from -0.75 to 0.00 D). TFSQ and TFSQ area were lower (meaning more stable tear film) at baseline when compared with both contact lens types (p < 0.025). Higher pre-lens tear instability (larger TFSQ and_TFSQ area values) was found with the dual-focus than the monofocal lens. Auto Tear Break-Up Time was higher at baseline than with each of the contact lenses, without statistically significant differences between both contact lens types. Visual analogue scales revealed statistically significant better scores in the monofocal contact lens than in dual-focus contact lens for general (0.77 ± 1.14 vs 3.12 ± 2.79), physical (0.96 ± 1.46 vs 2.19 ± 2.45) and visual comfort (1.27 ± 1.66 vs 3.92 ± 2.04).Conclusion: A slight reduction in short-term pre-lens tear film stability was found in the dual-focus design in comparison with the monofocal lens, potentially contributing to the deterioration of visual performance and comfort during dual-focus contact lens wear.

Ocular and corneal aberrations changes in controlled randomized clinical trial MiSight® Assessment Study Spain (MASS)

Background

To compare ocular and corneal inherent aberrations in the naked eyes of randomly selected children fitted with MiSight contact lenses (CL) for myopia control, versus children corrected with single-vision spectacles (control), over a 24-months period.

Methods

Children aged 8 to 12 years, with myopia (-0.75 to -4.00 D sphere) and astigmatism (< -1.00 D cylinder) were randomly assigned to the lens study group (MiSight) or the control group (single-vision spectacles). The root mean square aberration (RMS) was determined as corneal (RMS_C), corneal high order RMS (HO_RMS_C), corneal low order RMS (LO_RMS_C), ocular (total) RMS (RMS_T), ocular high order RMS (HO_RMS_T), ocular low order RMS (LO_RMS_T), corneal spherical aberration (SA_C) and ocular SA (SA_T) were calculated by aberrometry measures at the baseline, on 12-months and 24-months visits. A 5 mm diameter was defined for the analysis in all visits for all subjects. Only the dominant eye was analyzed.

Results

Seventy-four subjects completed the clinical trial: 41 subjects from the MiSight group (age: 11.01 ± 1.23 years) and 33 from the single-vision group (age: 10.12 ± 1.38 years). RMS_T significantly changed (0.57 ± 0.20 µm, p = 0.029) after 24-months in the control group. In the MiSight group no significant changes were registered (p > 0.05). The SA_C and SA_T did not reveal significant changes between visits or between groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Along 2 years, MiSight CL did not induce significant changes in RMS of anterior cornea or total ocular RMS. Contrary, in control group the RMS_T significantly changed as response of greater eye growth and myopia progression. The results obtained in present study allow to predict corneal or total aberration changes, in children, in response of wearing of MiSight lens along the time.

Trial registration

: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01917110.

Effect of axial length and anterior chamber depth on the peripheral refraction profile

AIM

To evaluate the effect of axial length (AL) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) on peripheral refractive profile in myopic patients compared to emmetropic participants.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in right eyes of 58 participants of whom 38 were emmetropic and 20 were myopic. Central and peripheral refraction were measured at 10°, 20°, and 30° eccentricities in nasal and temporal fields using an open-field autorefractor. The Lenstar LS900 was used to measure ACD and AL. The participants were divided into three groups of short (<22.5 mm), normal (22.5-24.5 mm), and long eye (>24.5 mm) according to AL and three groups of low ACD (<3.00 mm), normal ACD (3.00-3.60 mm), and high ACD (>3.60 mm) according to ACD.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 22.26±3.09y (range 18-30y). The peripheral mean spherical refractive error showed a hypermetropic shift in myopic and emmetropic groups although this shift was more pronounced in the myopic group. The results showed significant changes in the spherical equivalent, J0, and J45 astigmatism in all gazes with an increase in eccentricity (P<0.001). The pattern of refractive error changes was more noticeable in long and short eyes versus normal AL eyes. Moreover, the pattern of peripheral refractive changes was much more prominent in the high ACD group versus the normal ACD group and in the normal ACD group versus the low ACD group.

CONCLUSION

Peripheral refraction changes are greater in participants with AL values outside the normal range and deeper ACD values compared to participants with normal AL and ACD.

Power profiles of centre-distance multifocal soft contact lenses

PURPOSE

Centre-distance multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) for myopia control are thought to slow myopia progression by providing both clear foveal vision and myopic defocus. Characterising the power profile of lenses is important to understanding their possible effects on retinal defocus when worn. The power profiles of three commercially available MFCLs were determined.

METHODS

Three centre-distance MFCL designs were studied: Biofinity Multifocal D +2.50 add (comfilcon A), Proclear Multifocal D +2.50 add (omafilcon A), and NaturalVue Multifocal (etafilcon A). Two lenses each in power from -1.00D to -6.00D in 1D steps were stored in ISO 18369-3:2017 standard phosphate buffered saline for 24 h. Optical power profiles were measured in a wet cell with the SHSOphthalmic profiler accounting for centre thickness and manufacturer-reported material refractive index. Sagittal power maps from the SHSOphthalmic were exported, and custom MATLAB code was used to generate power profiles by averaging along the vertical and horizontal meridians. One-way anova with Tukey's HSD post-hoc t-tests were used to analyse maximum add power by lens design.

RESULTS

Plus power increased out from the lens centre for all three MFCLs. Power profiles of Biofinity D and Proclear D MFCLs show three distinct areas within the optic zone; the distance zone (from lens centre to about 1.6 mm radius), intermediate zone (about 1.6 mm radius to 2.1 mm) and near zone (about 2 mm radius to 4 mm). For NaturalVue MFCLs, plus power starts increasing almost immediately from the lens centre, reaching maximum measured mean plus power at a radius of 2.7 mm. From 2.7 mm to 3.0 mm, there was a decrease in plus power, which was then generally maintained out to the optic zone edge. Across all lens powers, maximum add power was highest with the NaturalVue MFCL (+3.32 ± 0.44D), then Proclear D (+1.84 ± 0.28D) and Biofinity D (+1.47 ± 0.34D) MFCLs (all p < 0.04). Add power peaked at different locations for different lens powers and designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Power profiles of MFCLs vary based on lens design and power. These power profiles are consistent with reported myopic and hyperopic changes in peripheral refraction with MFCLs and provide some explanation for reported differences in peripheral refraction with these MFCLs. Further work is needed to determine whether these power profile differences influence myopia progression.

Slowing the Progression of Myopia in Children with the MiSight Contact Lens: A Narrative Review of the Evidence

Myopia has become a major public health problem in the world due to the increase in its prevalence in the past few decades and due to sight-threatening pathologies associated with high myopia such as cataracts, glaucoma and especially myopic maculopathy. This article is a narrative review of the evidence that currently exists on a contact lenses (CLs) specifically designed to correct myopia and to slow its progression. To contextualise the topic we discuss the different classifications and definitions that have been used for myopia, the current burden of being myopic, and current treatment options to prevent and control its progression. There is evidence that exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of myopia onset and pharmacological treatment with atropine has been shown to be the most effective therapy for controlling its progression, followed by optical interventions such as CL fitting (orthokeratology or CLs specific for myopia control) designed to decrease retinal peripheral hyperopic defocus that seems to be the theory that suggests that axial elongation is driven by this defocus and explains why the eye continues to grow abnormally after emmetropisation and generates myopia. We will especially focus on MiSight CLs. MiSight is a daily replacement soft contact lens that has been clinically proven and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to control the progression of myopia in children. We analyse the optical design of MiSight CLs, as well as the results of the different efficacy and safety studies that led to the approval of the lens by the FDA. We also expose current knowledge gaps, limitations and future directions.