Dynamics of the accommodative response and facility with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of using dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the dynamics of the accommodative response and facility. METHODS: 24 young adult myopes were fitted with dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control (MiSight®) and single-vision soft contact lenses (Proclear®). The WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor was used to measure the dynamics of the accommodative response (magnitude and variability) in binocular conditions, with accommodative data being gathered from the dominant eye, at three viewing distances (500 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm) during 90 s. Also, the binocular accommodative facility was assessed with the WAM-5500 autorefractor. All participants performed the same experimental protocol with the dual-focus (MiSight) and single-vision (Proclear) soft contact lenses, with both experimental sessions being carried in two different days and following a counterbalanced order. RESULTS: This study showed greater lags of accommodation with the MiSight than the Proclear lenses at near distances (40 cm: 1.27 ± 0.77 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D, corrected p-value = 0.002, Cohen-d = 0.90; and 20 cm: 1.47 ± 0.84 vs. 1.01 ± 0.52 D, corrected p-value = 0.007, Cohen-d = 0.75), whereas a higher variability of accommodation was observed with the dual-focus than the single-vision lenses at 500 cm (0.53 ± 0.11 vs. 0.23 ± 0.10 D), 40 cm (0.82 ± 0.31 vs. 0.68 ± 0.37 D), and 20 cm (1.50 ± 0.56 vs. 1.15 ± 0.39 D) (corrected p-value < 0.001 in all cases, and Cohen-ds = 0.67-2.33). Also, a worse quantitative (27.75 ± 8.79 vs. 34.29 ± 10.08 cycles per minute, p = 0.029, Cohen-d = 0.48) and qualitative (23.68 ± 7.12 vs. 28.43 ± 7.97 score, p = 0.039, Cohen-d = 0.45) performance was observed with the MiSight when compared to the Proclear lenses. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control alters the dynamics of accommodative response and facility in the short-term. Although this optical design has demonstrated its effectiveness for myopia control, eye care specialists should be aware of the acute effects of these lenses on accommodation performance.

Impact of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on near work-induced transient myopia.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dual-focus soft contact lenses are effective in slowing myopia progression; however, their influence on near work-induced transient myopia (NITM) remains unknown. When performing a 5-min near task at 20 cm, we observed that dual-focus soft contact lens wear induced greater lags of accommodation and a lower initial NITM than single-vision soft contact lenses, which provides relevant information for better understanding the impact of using this optical design on the accommodative function. BACKGROUND: NITM has been proposed as a myogenic factor, although it is a matter of debate by the scientific community. The main objective of this study was to assess the short-term effect of wearing dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia control on the steady-state accommodative response and NITM. METHODS: Twenty-four young myope adults wore, on two different days, dual-focus and single-vision soft contact lenses, while the accommodative response was dynamically measured with an open-field autorefractor during the execution of the NITM task. The shift and the time required to recover baseline levels in the refractive state after performing the 5-min near task (20 cm) were the main dependent variables. RESULTS: We found a lower magnitude of accommodation during the execution of the near task with the dual-focus in comparison to the single-vision soft contact lenses (p < 0.001). There was a lower initial NITM with the dual-focus when compared to the single-vision lenses (corrected p-value = 0.003, Cohen's d = 0.68), but no statistically significant differences were observed for decay duration (p = 0.984). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-focus soft contact lens wear causes a reduced accommodative response during a near task, and an initial small myopic shift at distance after a 5-min period of near viewing. The current findings may help to understand the mechanisms involved in myopia control with this optical strategy.

Changes in accommodation and behavioural performance with a contact lens for myopia management: A comparison between a dual-focus and a single-vision soft contact lens.

INTRODUCTION: Dual-focus soft contact lenses for myopia management have demonstrated to be an effective strategy to reduce myopia progression. However, this optical design has been shown to alter visual quality and accommodative function. The aim of this study was to examine the accommodative and behavioural performance during the execution of a psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) while wearing dual-focus and single-vision soft contact lenses. METHODS: The steady-state accommodative response was recorded with the WAM-5500 binocular open-field autorefractor during the execution of a 10-min PVT at 50 cm either with the dual-focus (MiSight 1-day) or single-vision (Proclear 1-day) soft contact lenses, using a sample of 23 healthy young adults. Each experimental session was performed on two different days in a counterbalanced order. RESULTS: A greater lag of accommodation, variability of accommodation and reaction time was found while wearing dual-focus in comparison with single-vision soft contact lenses (mean differences during the 10-min PVT were 0.58 ± 0.81 D, p < 0.001; 0.31 ± 0.17 D, p < 0.001 and 15.22 ± 20.93 ms, p = 0.002, respectively). Also, a time-on-task effect was found for the variability of accommodation and reaction time (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), observing higher values over time. However, the lag of accommodation did not change significantly as a function of time-on-task (p = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Dual-focus soft contact lens wear influences the steady-state accommodative response and behavioural performance during the execution of a visual vigilance task in the short-term. Eye care practitioners should be aware of these effects when prescribing these lenses for myopia management, and provide specific recommendations according to the individual visual needs.