IMI - Clinical Management Guidelines Report.

Best practice clinical guidelines for myopia control involve an understanding of the epidemiology of myopia, risk factors, visual environment interventions, and optical and pharmacologic treatments, as well as skills to translate the risks and benefits of a given myopia control treatment into lay language for both the patient and their parent or caregiver. This report details evidence-based best practice management of the pre-, stable, and the progressing myope, including risk factor identification, examination, selection of treatment strategies, and guidelines for ongoing management. Practitioner considerations such as informed consent, prescribing off-label treatment, and guides for patient and parent communication are detailed. The future research directions of myopia interventions and treatments are discussed, along with the provision of clinical references, resources, and recommendations for continuing professional education in this growing area of clinical practice.

Myopia Control with Bifocal Contact Lenses: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Most studies have reported only minimal reductions in myopia progression with bifocal or progressive multifocal spectacles, although somewhat larger, although mostly still clinically insignificant, effects have been reported in children with nearpoint esophoria and/or accommodative dysfunctions. The CONTROL study was a 1-year, prospective, randomized, clinical trial of bifocal contact lenses for control of myopia in children with eso fixation disparities at near. METHODS: Eighty-six myopic subjects, aged 8 to 18 years, were enrolled in the study after passing the screening examination. Of these, 79 completed lens assignment and 78 completed the study. The mean refractive error of these 79 subjects was -2.69 ± 1.40D (SD), and all had progressed by -0.50D or more since their last examination. All subjects also had eso fixation disparity at near. Subjects were randomly assigned to wear either Vistakon Acuvue 2 (single-vision soft contact lenses [SVSCLs]) or Vistakon Acuvue Bifocal (bifocal soft contact lenses [BFSCLs]). Bifocal adds were selected to neutralize the associated phoria. Treatment outcomes included cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length, assessed in terms of changes after 6 and 12 months of treatment from pretreatment baseline values. RESULTS: The BFSCLs significantly slowed myopia progression, with statistically significant differences between the treatment groups after 6 months. After 12 months of treatment, the SVSCL group had progressed by -0.79 ± 0.43D compared with -0.22 ± 0.34D for the BFSCL group (cycloplegic objective spherical equivalent, average of two eyes). Corresponding axial length changes were 0.24 ± 0.17 mm and 0.05 ± 0.14 mm, respectively. All of these differences were found to be statistically significant (unpaired t-tests, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The distance center bifocal contact lenses tested in this study achieved greater control over myopia progression and axial elongation (>70%) compared with most published results with multifocal spectacles. Further studies are warranted to identify the critical factors and mechanisms underlying this myopia control effect.

Bifocal soft contact lenses as a possible myopia control treatment: a case report involving identical twins.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that bifocal and progressive spectacles can reduce progression of myopia in esophoric children. This study compared myopic progression with bifocal (BSCL) and single vision soft contact lenses (SVSCL) in identical twins with near point esophoria. METHODS: Two 12-year-old myopic girls were randomly assigned to wear either BSCL or SVSCL for one year using a double-masked design. Both twins then wore BSCLs for another year. Ocular measurements included cycloplegic and manifest refractions, corneal curvature and axial length. Distance and near phorias were measured through distance corrections and near associated phorias, with both types of contact lenses. RESULTS: Through their SVSCLs, both children exhibited near associated esophorias, which were neutralised by the BSCLs. The child wearing SVSCLs over the first year showed significant myopic progression, increasing -1.19 D (binocular average), while the child wearing BSCLs showed no progression (+0.13 D). The latter child showed limited progression (-0.28 D) over the second year, while switching from SVSCLs to BSCLs arrested progression in the other child (+0.44 D after one year). Axial length data were consistent with the refractive findings; the child exhibiting more myopia at the end of the first 12 months of the study had longer eyes (by 0.64 mm) than her sister, although their corneas also had steepened more (by 0.44 D compared to 0.18 D). The children showed minimal changes [corrected] in eye size over the second year when both wore BSCLs (binocular averages: -0.05, -0.09 [corrected] mm, respectively). CONCLUSION: The apparent inhibitory effect of BSCLs on myopic progression reported in this twin study argues for further study of their efficacy as a control treatment for myopes with near esophoria.