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

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.

Will treating progressive myopia overwhelm the eye care workforce? A workforce modelling study

Purpose

Treatments for myopia progression are now available, but implementing these into clinical practice will place a burden on the eye care workforce. This study estimated the full‐time equivalent (FTE) workforce required to implement myopia control treatments in the UK and Ireland.

Methods

To estimate the number of 6‐ to 21‐year‐olds with myopia, two models utilising separate data sources were developed. The examination‐based model used: (1) the number of primary care eye examinations conducted annually and (2) the proportion of these that are for myopic young people. The prevalence‐based model used epidemiological data on the age‐specific prevalence of myopia. The proportion of myopic young people progressing ≥0.25 dioptres (D)/year or ≥0.50 D/year was obtained from Irish electronic health records and the recommended review schedule from clinical management guidelines.

Results

Using the examination and prevalence models, respectively, the estimated number of young people with myopia was 2,469,943 and 2,235,713. The extra workforce required to provide comprehensive myopia management for this target population was estimated at 226–317 FTE at the 0.50 D/year threshold and 433–630 FTE at the 0.25 D/year threshold. Extra visits required for myopia control treatment represented approximately 2.6% of current primary eye care examinations versus 13.6% of hospital examinations.

Conclusions

Implementing new myopia control treatments in primary care settings over the medium‐term is unlikely to overwhelm the eye care workforce completely. Further increases to workforce, upskilling of current workforce and tools to reduce chair time will help to ensure sustainability of the eye care workforce into the future.