Visual performance of single vision and multifocal contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes

Gaze and behavioural metrics in the refractive correction of presbyopia

PURPOSE

To investigate gaze and behavioural metrics at different viewing distances with multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs), single vision contact lenses (SVCLs) and progressive addition lenses (PALs).

METHODS

Fifteen presbyopic contact lens wearers participated over five separate study visits. At each visit, participants were randomly assigned to wear one of five refractive corrections: habitual PAL spectacles, delefilcon A (Alcon Inc.) MFCLs and three separate pairs of delefilcon A single vision lenses worn as distance, intermediate and near corrections. Participants wore a Pupil Core headset to record eye and head movements while performing three visual tasks: reading, visual search and scene observation. Data were investigated using linear regression and post-hoc testing. Parameters of interest included gaze (fixation duration, head movement) and behavioural (reading speed, reading accuracy, visual search time) metrics.

RESULTS

Reading speed in SVCLs was significantly faster than in MFCLs and PAL spectacles (F = 16.3, p < 0.0001). Refractive correction worn did not influence visual search times (F = 0.16, p = 0.85). Fixation duration was significantly affected by the type of visual task (F = 60.2, p < 0.001), and an interaction effect was observed between viewing distance and refractive correction (F = 4.3, p = 0.002). There was significantly more horizontal and vertical head movement (F = 3.2, p = 0.01 and F = 3.3, p = 0.01, respectively) during visual search tasks when wearing PAL spectacles compared to SVCLs or MFCLs.

CONCLUSION

This work showed that the type of refractive correction affects behavioural metrics such as reading speed and gaze behaviour by affecting horizontal and vertical head movements. The findings of this study suggest that under certain conditions, wearers of MFCLs make fewer head movements compared to PAL spectacles. Gaze behaviour metrics offer a new approach to compare and understand contact lens and spectacle performance, with potential applications including peripheral optical designs for myopia management.

On-eye centration of soft contact lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relative positions of modern soft contact lenses (SCLs) relative to the limbus/cornea and the pupil.

METHODS

Sixty images of the anterior eyes of 101 subjects were acquired over 10 s while participants fixated the centre of the camera lens located 33 cm in front of the eye in a well-lit (300 lux) clinic. Custom validated image analysis software was used to locate the boundaries of the contact lenses, pupils and corneas (limbus). Horizontal and vertical relative positions of the contact lens, pupil and limbus were calculated from the fitted boundaries.

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation) pupil and corneal diameters for all subjects were 3.84 mm, (0.83) and 11.97 mm (0.48), respectively. The mean [95% confidence interval] pupil centre was located 0.28 mm [0.26, 0.30] nasally and 0.07 mm [0.05, 0.10] superiorly to the corneal centre. Consistent with clinical observations, the contact lenses centred accurately relative to the corneal centre both nasally 0.04 mm [0.01, 0.07] and inferiorly -0.01 mm [-0.06, 0.03]. However, regardless of the eye, the contact lens was significantly (p < 0.001) decentred relative to the pupil centre both temporally -0.23 mm [-0.26, -0.20] and inferiorly -0.08 mm [-0.12, -0.04]. Decentration magnitudes were significantly correlated between the right and left eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Spherical SCLs centred well on the cornea but temporally and inferiorly from the primary line of sight (pupil centre), due to the differences in the location of the pupil and corneal centres. Contrary to some previous reports, there was no evidence that lens optics or material affected lens centration significantly.

Efficacy of Soft Contact Lenses for Myopia Control: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To summarize and analyze critically the scientific evidence focused on the effectiveness of the use of hydrophilic contact lenses (HCLs) in myopia control, as well as their impact on visual quality and the involvement on the accommodative and binocular function.

METHODS

This systematic review was developed selecting all original studies which evaluated HCLs for myopia control with follow-up of at least 1 year. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from PubMed MEDLINE and Scopus. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for RCTs.

RESULTS

The search provided a total of 276 articles, selecting 13 according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority of studies evaluating the effectiveness of HCL showed a good efficacy in myopia progression, providing a good quality of vision. The quality of these studies was found to be suitable according to the CASP tool. The accommodative and binocular function with these lenses was evaluated in few studies, reporting a trend to an increase in the accommodative response and exophoria in near vision, while maintaining good level of stereopsis. Aberrometry and pupillometry were only studied in one trial, in which the authors did not find changes in these variables after the use of a myopia control HCL.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong evidence about the effectiveness of different HCLs designs for slowing down myopia progression in children, providing all of them good levels of visual quality. However, there is still poor evidence about changes in accommodation and binocular function, as well as in pupil size and aberrometry with myopia control HCLs, being necessary more studies focused on this issue.

Content development for a new item-bank for measuring multifocal contact lens performance

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia is an age-related condition that causes a decreased ability to focus on nearby objects. Multifocal contact lenses are commonly used to address this issue. However, there seems to be a notable dissatisfaction among multifocal contact lens wearers. The absence of a reliable instrument to measure the patient's perspective, despite the widespread use of this method, highlights the need for further research in this area.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to develop an item-bank integrating all domains necessary to assess the patient's perspective on multifocal contact lens performance, offering a comprehensive measure. The item-bank will ensure a high level of content validity, be self-administered, and will initially be available in Spanish. The aim of this tool is to serve as a valuable resource for research and optometric clinics, facilitating the follow-up of patients with presbyopia who wear multifocal contact lenses or those who are newly starting to use them.

METHODOLOGY

The MCL-PRO item bank, followed a systematic and step-wise inductive approach to gather information, following the recommendations outlined in the COSMIN guidelines and similar studies. The process involved the following steps: (1) Literature review and relevant existing items identification (2) Social media review, (3) Semi-structured focus groups, (4) performing qualitative analysis, (5) refining and revising the items, and (6) generating the content of the item bank.

RESULTS

A total of 575 items were included in the item-bank hosted under 8 different domains that were found to be important for presbyopic population: visual symptoms (213), activity limitation (111), ocular symptoms (135), convenience (36), emotional well-being (33), general symptoms (16), cognitive issues (21) and economic issues (10).

CONCLUSION

The item-bank created has followed standardised methodology for its development and encloses all the aspects for MCL performance evaluation from patients perspective.

Visual Performance and Higher Order Aberrations Obtained With Omafilcon A Dual-Focus and Single-Vision Contact Lens Designs

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the visual performance and monochromatic higher-order aberrations (HOAs) obtained while wearing a MiSight dual-focus (DF) contact lenses (CL) in comparison with a single-vision contact lens (SVCL).

METHODS

A randomized, double-masked, cross-over study was performed. Participants were fitted with a DFCL and a SVCL composed of the same material (omafilcon A) and parameters. Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution high-contrast (100%) and low-contrast (10%) visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) for 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree were measured. Higher-order aberrations were also evaluated using a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer with the CLs on.

RESULTS

Twenty-four subjects (21 females and 3 males) with a mean age of 21.9±1.9 years (range: 18-27) were included. Low-contrast VA was significantly lower with the DFCL regarding the SVCL design (0.39±0.23 vs 0.25±0.18, P=0.002). However, there were no differences in high-contrast VA between both CLs (-0.03±0.10 vs -0.09±0.14, P=0.187). Contrast sensitivity was lower with the DFCL under all spatial frequencies (P≤0.048). Second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-order aberrations were significantly (P<0.001) higher for the DFCL. There were also significant differences between DFCL and SVCL in defocus (0.87±0.28 vs 0.16±0.35, P<0.001), oblique trefoil (-0.16±0.27 vs -0.01±0.08, P=0.005), vertical coma (0.13±0.17 vs 0.00±0.08, P=0.002), and spherical aberration (0.09±0.11 vs -0.02±0.05, P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

Visual performance for detecting low-contrast targets is reduced when wearing MiSight DFCL compared with a SVCL with the same material. The main reason might be the induction of second-order and HOAs by the DFCL design.

Presbyopia correction with multifocal contact lenses: Evaluation of silent reading performance using eye movements analysis

PURPOSE

Many activities of daily living rely on reading, thus is not surprising that complaints from presbyopes originate in reading difficulties rather in visual acuity. Here, the effectiveness of presbyopia correction with multifocal contact lenses (CLs) is evaluated using an eye-fixation based method of silent reading performance. ΜETHODS: Visual performance of thirty presbyopic volunteers (age: 50 ± 5 yrs) was assessed monocularly and binocularly following 15 days of wear of monthly disposable CLs (AIR OPTIX™ plus HydraGlyde™, Alcon Laboratories) with: (a) single vision (SV) lenses - uncorrected for near (b) aspheric multifocal (MF) CLs. LogMAR acuity was measured with ETDRS charts. Reading performance was evaluated using standard IReST paragraphs displayed on a screen (0.4 logMAR print size at 40 cm distance). Eye movements were monitored with an infrared eyetracker (Eye-Link II, SR Research Ltd). Data analysis included computation of reading speed, fixation duration, fixations per word and percentage of regressions.

RESULTS

Average reading speed was 250 ± 68 and 235 ± 70 wpm, binocularly and monocularly, with SV CLs, improving statistically significantly to 280 ± 67 (p = 0.002) and 260 ± 59 wpm (p = 0.01), respectively, with MF CLs. Moreover, fixation duration, fixations per word and ex-Gaussian parameter of fixation duration, μ, showed a statistically significant improvement when reading with MF CLs, with fixation duration exhibiting the stronger correlation (r = 0.79, p < 0.001) with improvement in reading speed. The correlation between improvement in VA and reading speed was moderate (r = 0.46, p = 0.016), as was the correlation between VA and any eye fixation parameter.

CONCLUSION

Average silent reading speed in a presbyopic population was found improved with MF compared to SV CL correction and was faster with binocular compared to monocular viewing: this was mainly due to the faster average fixation duration and the lower number of fixations. Evaluating reading performance using eye fixation analysis could offer a reliable outcome of functional vision in presbyopia correction.

Challenges to the new soft contact lens wearer and strategies for clinical management

Soft contact lens discontinuations have a dramatic impact on the overall success of this form of vision correction, and evidence suggests that the reasons for contact lens cessation are different for new wearers than for established lens users. In descending order, these relate to vision, discomfort, handling, inconvenience/loss of interest, ocular health and cost. This paper considers the background and underlying evidence for these causes of soft lens discontinuation in new wearers, and presents clinical management strategies to minimise this phenomenon. Such measures can reasonably be expected to significantly reduce the number of contact lens discontinuations leading to happier patients, increased satisfaction for eye care professionals (ECPs), and greater success for both individual practices and the contact lens industry more broadly.

The effect of concentric and aspheric multifocal soft contact lenses on binocular vision in young adult myopes

PURPOSE

Multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) are prescribed to inhibit myopia progression; these include aspheric and concentric designs. The effects of MFCLs on visual quality, accommodation and vergence in young-adult myopes were evaluated.

METHODS

Participants were twenty-six myopes (19-25 years, spherical equivalent -0.50 to -5.75D), with normal binocular vision and no past myopia control. Pupil sizes were 4.4 ± 0.9 mm during distance viewing and 3.7 ± 0.8 mm at near. In random order, participants wore four MFCLs: Proclear single vision distance, MiSight concentric dual focus (+2.00D), distance center aspheric (Biofinity, +2.50D) (CooperVision lenses), and NaturalVue aspheric (Visioneering Technologies). Testing included visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson), stereoacuity, accommodation response, negative and positive relative accommodation, horizontal phorias, horizontal fusional vergence and AC/A ratio, and a visual quality questionnaire.

RESULTS

The four lenses differed in distance (p = 0.001) and near visual acuity (p = 0.011), and contrast sensitivity (p = 0.001). Compared with the single vision lens, the Biofinity aspheric had the greatest visual impact: 0.19 ± 0.14 logMAR distance acuity reduction, 0.22 ± 0.15 log contrast sensitivity reduction. Near acuity was affected less than distance acuity; the reduction was greatest with the NaturalVue (0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR reduction). The MFCLs altered the autorefraction measure at distance and near (p = 0.001); the accommodation response was less with aspheric lenses. Negative relative accommodation reduced with the aspheric lenses (p = 0.001): by 0.9 ± 0.5D with Biofinity and 0.5 ± 0.7D with NaturalVue. Exophoric shifts were greater with aspheric lenses (1.8 ± 2.4Δ Biofinity, 1.7 ± 1.7Δ NaturalVue) than with the concentric MiSight (0.5 ± 1.3Δ).

CONCLUSIONS

MFCLs alter visual performance, refraction and vergence; two aspheric lenses had greater effect than a concentric lens.

Visual Performance and Binocular/Accommodative Function of S.T.O.P. Contact Lenses Compared With MiSight

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of two novel S.T.O.P. design (F2 and DT) contact lenses against MiSight when worn by myopic, young adults.

METHOD

This was a prospective, randomized, cross-over, single-masked study. Each lens was worn daily wear with overnight peroxide disinfection for approximately 7 days. Visual performance was assessed with subjective ratings (0-100): clarity of vision and lack of ghosting (far away, intermediate, and near), vision when driving, overall vision satisfaction, and with monocular high-contrast and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA/LCVA) at 6 m, binocular HCVA (6 m, 70 cm, 50 cm, and 40 cm), binocular LCVA (6 m and 70 cm). Binocular function was assessed with heterophorias (3 m and 40 cm). Accommodative function was assessed with monocular accommodative facility (AF: 40 cm) and dynamic monocular accommodative response (AR: 6 m, 70 cm, and 40 cm).

RESULTS

F2 was rated higher than MiSight for clarity of vision (near and intermediate) and lack-of-ghosting ( P <0.001), while MiSight was rated higher than DT for clarity of vision (near, P <0.001). MiSight was better than F2 and DT for monocular HCVA (6 m) and binocular HCVA (6 m and 40 cm, P ≤0.02), but the maximum difference was ≤2 letters. There were no differences between designs for heterophoria ( P =0.61) nor were there any differences between DT and MiSight for any accommodative measure ( P >0.1). F2 was higher for monocular-AF ( P =0.007) and lower for AR (70 cm and 40 cm; P ≤0.007) compared with MiSight.

CONCLUSIONS

The visual performance and binocular/accommodative function of S.T.O.P. designs F2 and DT were comparable with MiSight. F2 outperformed MiSight in some aspects of subjective visual performance and monocular accommodative function.

Visual performance with multifocal corneal gas-permeable contact lenses in young adults: A pilot study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of four experimental multifocal gas permeable contact lens (MFGPCL) designs and their impact on visual function in young adults.

METHODS

Seventeen young adults (age, 23.17 ± 4.48 years) enrolled in the study. Each participant was randomly assigned to wear two of four MFGPCL designs. They wore the first type of the assigned lens binocularly for one week and, after one week of washout period, wore another design on both eyes for another week. The four MFGPCL designs were as follows: design A (distance zone [DZ] 1.5 mm / add 3.0 D), B (DZ 1.5 mm / add 1.5 D), C (DZ 3.0 mm / add 3.0 D), and D (DZ 3.0 mm / add 1.5 D). Baseline visual acuity, contrast sensitivity function, and accommodation data were collected at baseline and repeated after one week of MFGPCL daily wear.

RESULTS

Distance and near visual acuities were not significant affected with the four MFGPCL designs. Contrast sensitivity was significantly lower in design A across all measured spatial frequencies (p < 0.05), with no significant impact from other designs on all frequencies. No significant effect was observed on accommodation measured at 33 cm (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Three of the investigated MFGPCL designs preserve satisfactory visual performance. Lens design A incorporated with higher add and smaller center zone diameter had a stronger impact on the visual performance.

Short-term tear film stability, optical quality and visual performance in two dual-focus contact lenses for myopia control with different optical designs

Purpose

To assess and compare short‐term visual and optical quality and tear film stability between two dual‐focus (DF) prototype myopia control contact lenses (CLs) having different inner zone diameters.

Methods

Twenty‐eight myopic subjects were included in this randomised, double‐masked crossover study. Refraction, best‐corrected visual acuity (VA) and tear film stability were measured at baseline (i.e., when uncorrected). Subjects were then binocularly fitted with the DF CLs, with only the sensorial dominant eye being assessed. Lenses were of the same material and had inner zone diameters of either 2.1 mm (S design) or 4.0 mm (M design). Visual and physical short‐term lens comfort, over‐refraction, best‐corrected VA, stereopsis at 40 cm, best‐corrected photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), size and shape of light disturbance (LD), wavefront aberrations, subjective quality of vision (QoV Questionnaire) and tear film stability were measured for each lens.

Results

Both CL designs decreased tear film stability compared with baseline (p < 0.05). VA and photopic CS were within normal values for the subjects' age with each CL. When comparing lenses, the M design promoted better photopic CS for the 18 cycles per degree spatial frequency (p < 0.001) and better LD (p < 0.02). However, higher‐order aberrations were improved with the S design (p = 0.02). No significant difference between the two CLs was found for QoV scores and tear film stability.

Conclusions

Both DF CLs provided acceptable visual performance under photopic conditions. The 4.0 mm inner zone gave better contrast sensitivity at high frequencies and lower light disturbance, while the 2.1 mm central diameter induced fewer higher‐order aberrations for a 5 mm pupil diameter. Both CLs produced the same subjective visual short‐term lens comfort.

Catastrophe optics theory unveils the localised wave aberration features that generate ghost images

Monocular polyplopia (ghost or multiple images) is a serious visual impediment for some people who report seeing two (diplopia), three (triplopia) or even more images. Polyplopia is expected to appear if the point spread function (PSF) has multiple intensity cores (a dense concentration of a large portion of the radiant flux contained in the PSF) relatively separated from each other, each of which contributes to a distinct image. We present a theory that assigns these multiple PSF cores to specific features of aberrated wavefronts, thereby accounting optically for the perceptual phenomenon of monocular polyplopia. The theory provides two major conclusions. First, the most likely event giving rise to multiple PSF cores is the presence of hyperbolic, or less probably elliptical, umbilic caustics (using the terminology of catastrophe optics). Second, those umbilic caustics formed on the retinal surface are associated with certain points of the wave aberration function, called cusps of Gauss, where the gradient of a curvature function vanishes. However, not all cusps of Gauss generate those umbilic caustics. We also provide necessary conditions for those cusps of Gauss to be fertile. To show the potential of this theoretical framework for understanding the nature and origin of polyplopia, we provide specific examples of ocular wave aberration functions that induce diplopia and triplopia. The polyplopia effects in these examples are illustrated by depicting the multi-core PSFs and the convolved retinal images for clinical letter charts, both through computer simulations and through experimental recording using an adaptive optics set-up. The number and location of cores in the PSF is thus a potentially useful metric for the existence and severity of polyplopia in spatial vision. These examples also help explain why physiological pupil constriction might reduce the incidence of ghosting and multiple images of daily objects that affect vision with dilated pupils. This mechanistic explanation suggests a possible role for optical phase-masking as a clinical treatment for polyplopia and ghosting.

The influence of contact lenses with different optical designs on the binocular vision and visual behavior of young adults

Theoretically, contact lenses change the accommodation and vergence demands of the eyes and directly or indirectly influence binocular vision. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different optical designs of contact lenses on binocular vision and visual behavior among young adults. In this randomized, single-blinded experimental study, visual behavioral performance (VBP) and Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaires were used for preliminary screening. Nineteen myopic subjects aged 20-26 years (21.59 ± 1.40 years) participated in the study. Baseline values for subjective refraction and binocular visual functions were evaluated. All the subjects were randomly grouped to wear different optical designs of single-vision, progressive, and bifocal contact lenses. Eye examinations were performed on the first day (CL baseline), 2nd week, and 4th week of wearing the lenses. In addition, subjects completed the VBP and visual quality questionnaire again at the end of the examination. Single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) increased accommodative lag, negative relative accommodation, and distant and near vergence; however, vergence facilities, accommodative facilities, heterophoria, and the comfort and posture balance dimensions in the VBP questionnaire were improved. Progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) reduced the lag of accommodation and near vergence; in addition, vergence facilities and accommodative facilities were also improved. Bifocal contact lenses (Lens 3) affected negative and positive relative accommodation, but vergence facilities and accommodative facilities also progressed. Furthermore, both progressive (Lens 2) and bifocal (Lens 3) contact lenses enhanced overall visual behavioral performance. In terms of visual quality, single-vision contact lenses (Lens 1) were the most comfortable, progressive and bifocal contact lenses reduced distant visual acuity and stability, progressive contact lenses (Lens 2) had more complaints about halos at night, and bifocal contact lens (Lens 3) users were more likely to have double vision. Compared with single-vision contact lenses, progressive and bifocal contact lenses relaxed accommodation, reduced the lag of accommodation, and improved visual behavioral performance. Although the vergence function showed a significant change, it did not show worse trends when wearing contact lenses. Contact lenses with different optical designs have a great influence on binocular vision and visual behavioral performance.

Contrast Sensitivity with Center-distance Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses

SIGNIFICANCE

The contrast sensitivity (CS) function provides a more detailed assessment of vision than visual acuity. It was found that center-distance multifocal contact lens designs that are increasingly being prescribed for myopia control reduce distance photopic and mesopic CS in nonpresbyopic patients across a range of spatial frequencies.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effect of center-distance multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) on CS under photopic and mesopic conditions in nonpresbyopic patients.

METHODS

Twenty-five myopic, nonpresbyopic adults were fitted binocularly with three lenses: Biofinity single vision contact lens (SVCL), Biofinity Multifocal D +2.50 add, and NaturalVue Multifocal in random order. Contrast sensitivity was measured at distance (4 m) under photopic and mesopic conditions and at near under photopic conditions. Log CS by spatial frequency and area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) were analyzed between lenses.

RESULTS

Distance photopic CS at each spatial frequency was higher with the SVCL than the MFCLs (P < .001), but there was no difference between the MFCLs (P = .71). Distance mesopic CS from 1.5 to 12 cycles per degree (cpd) was higher with the SVCL than the MFCLs (all P < .02); however, at 18 cpd, there was no difference in CS between NaturalVue and the SVCL (P = .76), possibly because of spurious resolution. Photopic AULCSF for the SVCL was roughly 10% greater than both MFCLs. Contrast sensitivity at near was generally similar between lenses, only slightly lower with the NaturalVue at 11 and 15.5 cpd, but AULCSF at near was not different between lenses (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal contact lenses reduce distance contrast sensitivity under both photopic and mesopic conditions. There is no clinically significant difference in near CS among all three lenses. These data show that MFCLs have effects on vision that are not captured by standard high-contrast visual acuity testing.

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.

Multifocal contact lenses: A bibliometric study

PURPOSE

To analyze the state of scientific publications in multifocal contact lenses field through a bibliometric study.

METHODS

The database used to carry out the study was SCOPUS and contained the descriptors "multifocal contact lens", "bifocal contact lenses", "progressive contact lenses" and "presbyopia contact lenses", limited to the fields of title, keywords and abstract. The indicators applied in this research were: doubling time and annual growth rate, Price's transience index, Lotka's law of scientific productivity, and Bradford's zones.

RESULTS

A total of 346 articles were published between 1960 and 2019. The growth in the number of publications matches the exponential adjustment slightly better (R = 0.53). The duplication time was 13.2 years. The productivity level is focused on articles with an average number of authors of just 2.06 per article. The Bradford core was formed by two journals, Optometry and Vision Science and Eye and Contact Lens.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on multifocal contact lenses has exponential growth, without evidence of having reached a saturation point. The main countries in scientific production in this field are the United States and Australia.

Vision-related quality of life with myopia management: A review

The disease of myopia has come into focus as a worldwide public health concern. Myopia has shown increasing prevalence, incidence at earlier age and progression to a higher degree. Progressive increase in degree of myopia is strongly associated with increase in axial length of the eye. Various interventions have been shown to slow axial elongation in children. These interventions have been studied to assess efficacy in slowing axial elongation and correction of vision. In addition, research into quality of vision, risk of adverse events, overall safety and impact on vision-related quality (VR-QoL) of life has been pursued. In contrast, studies have been published to demonstrate the risks of myopia, high myopia and increased axial length. This review will discuss VR-QoL assessment on the most effective and most commonly prescribed interventions to slow axial elongation and myopia progression. The patient attributes considered are VR-QoL scores from validated instruments. The development and use of validated survey instruments to assess the patient-reported outcomes is discussed. The review demonstrates that there are numerous factors that may impact VR-QoL to evaluate in the decision-making process when eye care providers consider when, how and if to prescribe myopia management (MM) for children with myopia.

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.

Ocular surface microvascular response and its relation to contact lens fitting and ocular comfort: an update of recent research

This review examines vascular responses in the ocular surface to contact lens wear and its relation to lens fitting characteristics and contact lens-related discomfort. A search of PubMed was performed to find original research in English, within the past 10 years, that studied the ocular surface, including lid-wiper vascular responses to the lens. The interaction between the lens and ocular surface triggers vascular responses, impacting the lens fitting and contact lens-related discomfort. Contact lens-related discomfort is a multifactorial event, which is affected by lens characteristics. Overall, contact lenses with low modulus and a relatively tight fit produce significant ocular comfort. If an appropriate lens fit is achieved, lens fitting characteristics may not play a critical role in contact lens-related discomfort. On the other hand, the pathogenic and vascular changes of lid-wiper vascular responses appear to play an essential role in developing contact lens-related discomfort, in concert with reactions of the cornea (compression and staining) and conjunctiva (indentation and staining). Robust evaluation of lid-wiper changes at the cellular and microvascular level may hold the key to better understanding the mechanism of contact lens-related discomfort and reveal strategies for eliminating lid wiper epitheliopathy and improving ocular comfort in contact lens wearers.

Influence of Lenslet Configuration on Short-Term Visual Performance in Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate short-term visual performance and optical quality of three different lenslet configurations on myopia control spectacle lenses.

Materials and Methods: This study utilized a cross-over design. Distance visual acuity (VA) was measured in 50 myopic children; contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured in 36 myopic children. For each test, four spectacle lenses were evaluated in a random order: single-vision lens (SVL), lens with concentric rings of highly aspherical lenslets (HAL), lens with concentric rings of slightly aspherical lenslets (SAL), and lens with honeycomb configuration of spherical lenslets (HC). The modulation transfer function (MTF) and MTF area (MTFa) were used to determine optical quality. All tests were performed monocularly on the right eye with full correction.

Results: HAL and SAL had larger MTFa than HC. VA in lenses with lenslets was significantly reduced compared to SVL (all p < 0.01). The reduction in VA was worse with HC than with SAL (p = 0.02) and HAL (p = 0.03); no effect of lenslet asphericity was found (p > 0.05). VA changes induced by lenslets showed no correlation with spherical equivalent refraction (all p > 0.05) and were weakly positively associated with age for SAL (r = 0.36, p = 0.01) and HC (r = 0.31, p = 0.03), but not for HAL (p = 0.30). The area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) decreased with HAL and HC (all p < 0.001) in all illumination levels, and AULCSF with HAL was higher than that with HC in a photopic condition (1.17 ± 0.10 vs. 1.10 ± 0.13, p = 0.0004). The presence of lenslets did not affect CS at 3 cycles per degree (cpd) (p = 0.80). At 6 to 18 cpd, CS was significantly reduced by HAL and HC (all p < 0.05), but not SAL (p > 0.05) compared to SVL. At high spatial frequencies (>12 cpd) both SAL and HAL reduced CS significantly less than HC (all p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Short-term visual performance was minimally impaired by looking through the lenslet structure of myopia control spectacle lenses. Concentric rings with aspherical lenslets had a significantly lower impact on both VA and CS than honeycomb configuration with spherical lenslets.

The Relationship Between Vision and Comfort in Contact Lens Wear

OBJECTIVE

Understand relationship between vision and comfort in contact lens (CL) wear.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of five trials using similar protocols with nonpresbyopic (NP) myopes or presbyopic participants (Px) wearing various simultaneous-image designs (SM) and single-vision (SV) CL (NP only). Questionnaires (vision satisfaction, vision clarity: distance/intermediate/near, comfort) on 1 to 10 scale were administered 1 week after fitting. Vision/comfort relationship was analyzed using linear mixed model and presented as regression coefficient with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Vision ratings correlated with comfort ratings, although this varied depending on type of vision rating and Px category. Vision satisfaction influenced comfort for the NP-SV group (slope: 0.8; 95% CI: 0.58-1.01, P≤0.001), but was significantly lower in the presbyopic group (slope: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.33-0.42; P≤0.001). Controlling for lens material obtained similar results. In the reverse relationship, comfort had a significant impact on vision satisfaction, although again at varying levels for each Px group. NP-SV demonstrated the weakest relationship (slope: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.35-0.59, P≤0.001) in comparison to NP-SM and P-SM groups.

CONCLUSION

Vision and comfort in CL wear are inter-related. Consideration of Px characteristics, visual stimulus, and CL comfort needs to be accounted for when assessing overall CL experience.

Vision with spatial light modulator simulating multifocal contact lenses in an adaptive optics system

Visual simulators are useful tools to provide patients experience of multifocal vision prior to treatment. In this study, commercially available center-near aspheric multifocal contact lenses (MCLs) of low, medium, and high additions were mapped on a spatial light modulator (SLM) and validated on a bench. Through focus visual acuity (TFVA) was measured in subjects through the SLM and real MCLs on the eye. A correlation metric revealed statistically significant shape similarity between TFVA curves with real and simulated MCLs. A Bland-Altman analysis showed differences within confidence intervals of ±0.01 logMAR for LowAdd/MediumAdd and ±0.06 logMAR for HighAdd. Visual performance with simulated MCLs outperformed real MCLs by ∼20%. In conclusion, SLM captures the profile of center-near MCLs and reproduces vision with real MCLs, revealing that the MCL profile and its interactions with the eye's optics (and not fitting aspects) account for the majority of the contributions to visual performance with MCLs.

Visual Performance of Center-distance Multifocal Contact Lenses Fit Using a Myopia Control Paradigm

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the visual performance of center-distance MFCLs in nonpresbyopic adults under different illumination and contrast conditions compared with a single-vision contact lens (SVCL).

METHODS

Twenty-five adult subjects were fit with three different lenses (CooperVision Biofinity D MFCL +2.50 add, Visioneering Technologies NaturalVue MFCL, CooperVision Biofinity sphere). Acuity and reading performance were evaluated.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference in high-contrast distance acuity was observed (Biofinity, -0.18 ± 0.06; Biofinity MFCL, -0.14 ± 0.08; NaturalVue MFCL, -0.15 ± 0.03; repeated-measures [RM] ANOVA, P = .02). Under mesopic, high-contrast conditions, MFCLs performed worse than SVCLs (Biofinity, -0.05 ± 0.091; Biofinity MFCL, +0.03 ± 0.09; NaturalVue MFCL, +0.05 ± 0.091; RM-ANOVA, P < .0001). Under low-contrast conditions, MFCLs performed one line worse in photopic lighting and two lines worse under mesopic conditions (RM-ANOVA, P < .0001). Glare reduced acuity by 0.5 logMAR for all lenses (RM-ANOVA, P < .001). A statistically significant difference in near acuity was observed (RM-ANOVA, P = .02), but all lenses achieved acuity better than -0.1 logMAR (Biofinity, -0.16 ± 0.06; Biofinity MFCL, -0.17 ± 0.04; NaturalVue MFCL, -0.13 ± 0.08). Reading performance in words per minute (wpm) was worse with MFCLs (Biofinity MFCL, 144 ± 22 wpm; NaturalVue MFCL, 150 ± 28 wpm) than with SVCLs (156 ± 23 wpm; RM-ANOVA, P = .02) regardless of letter size (RM-ANOVA, P = .13). No difference in acuity between the MFCLs was detected (RM-ANOVA: all, P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal contact lenses perform similarly to SVCLs for high-contrast targets and display reduced low-contrast acuity and reading speed. Practitioners should recognize that high-contrast acuity alone does not describe MFCL visual performance.

Exploring non-adherence to contact lens wear schedule: Subjective assessments and patient related factors in children wearing single vision and myopia control contact lenses

PURPOSE

To determine factors associated with non-adherence to contact lens wear schedule involving single vision and myopia control contact lenses in children.

METHODS

Data from 379 children enrolled in a prospective, double masked, randomized clinical trial, aged 8-13 years, cycloplegic spherical equivalent of -0.75 to -3.50D and wearing either: single vision silicone hydrogel (SiH) CL (control lens); two anti-myopia SiH CL that incorporated relative plus in the central and periphery in a stepped manner (test lens I and II); and two extended depth of focus hydrogel CL (test lens III and IV) was considered. A questionnaire was administered to the participants at every scheduled visit and gathered information on days of wear/week and subjective assessments of ocular comfort and visual quality on an analog scale of 1-10.Participants were categorized as "Adherent" when lens wear was ≥ 6 days/week or "Non-adherent" when lens wear ≤ 5 days/week. Categorized adherence data was summarized as a percentage across visits for each CL type. Differences between the two groups were analyzed using linear mixed model.

RESULTS

For the control lens, 79.6 % participants were adherent as compared to 63.7%-74.6% with test lenses (p=0.026). Non-adherence was greater in those that discontinued (p<0.001). Subjective ratings of visual quality for static and dynamic tasks were lower with non-adherent wearers and more variable between visits. Ocular comfort was also poorer in non-adherent wearers irrespective of lens material or lens design. Male gender, lower baseline myopia, lower high contrast visual acuity and esophoria were associated with a higher risk of non-adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified a wide range of factors associated with non-adherence to lens wear schedule. Paying specific attention to these factors when evaluating patients for CL wear and taking steps to ensure satisfaction in lens wear may promote longer term continuation of wear.

Visual quality of juvenile myopes wearing multifocal soft contact lenses

Background

It is unclear whether multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs) affect visual quality when they are used for myopia control in juvenile myopes. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the effect of MFSCLs on visual quality among juvenile myopia subjects.

Methods

In a prospective, intervention study, thirty-three juvenile myopes were enrolled. Visual perception was assessed by a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire with spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear. At the one-month visit, the high (96%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance HCVA) and low (10%) contrast distance visual acuity (distance LCVA) were measured with single vision spectacle lenses, single vision soft contact lenses (SVSCLs) and MFSCLs in a random order. Wavefront aberrations were measured with SVSCLs, with MFSCLs, and without any correction.

Results

Neither distance HCVA (p > 0.05) nor distance LCVA (p > 0.05) revealed any significant difference between MFSCLs, SVSCLs and single vision spectacle lenses. The overall score (the sum of ten symptoms) of the QoV questionnaire did not show a statistically significant difference between spectacles at baseline and after 1 month of MFSCL wear (p = 0.357). The results showed that the frequency (p < 0.001), severity (p = 0.001) and bothersome degree (p = 0.016) of halos were significantly worse when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. In contrast, the bothersome degree caused by focusing difficulty (p = 0.046) and the frequency of difficulty in judging distance or depth perception (p = 0.046) were better when wearing MFSCLs than when wearing single vision spectacle lenses. Compared with the naked eye, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p < 0.001), higher-order aberrations (p < 0.001), trefoil (p = 0.023), coma aberrations (p < 0.001) and spherical aberrations (SA) (p < 0.001). Compared with the SVSCLs, MFSCLs increased the total aberrations (p < 0.001), higher-order aberrations (p < 0.001), coma aberrations (p < 0.001) and SA (p < 0.001). The direction of SA was more positive (p < 0.001) with the MFSCLs and more negative (p = 0.001) with the SVSCLs compared with the naked eye.

Conclusions

Wearing MFSCLs can provide satisfactory corrected visual acuity (both distance HCVA and distance LCVA). Although the lenses increased the aberrations, such as total aberrations and higher-order aberrations, there were few adverse effects on the distance HCVA, distance LCVA and visual perception after 1 month of MFSCL use.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-OOC-17012103. Registered 23 July 2017, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx

Changing accommodation behaviour during multifocal soft contact lens wear using auditory biofeedback training

Biofeedback training has been used to access autonomically-controlled body functions through visual or acoustic signals to manage conditions like anxiety and hyperactivity. Here we examined the use of auditory biofeedback to improve accommodative responses to near visual stimuli in patients wearing single vision (SV) and multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCL). MFCLs are one evidence-based treatment shown to be effective in slowing myopia progression in children. However, previous research found that the positive addition relaxed accommodation at near, possibly reducing the therapeutic benefit. Accommodation accuracy was examined in 18 emmetropes and 19 myopes while wearing SVCLs and MFCLs (centre-distance). Short periods of auditory biofeedback training to improve the response (reduce the lag of accommodation) was performed and accommodation re-assessed while patients wore the SVCLs and MFCLs. Significantly larger accommodative lags were measured with MFCLs compared to SV. Biofeedback training effectively reduced the lag by ≥0.3D in individuals of both groups with SVCL and MFCL wear. The training was more effective in myopes wearing their habitual SVCLs. This study shows that accommodation can be changed with short biofeedback training independent of the refractive state. With this proof-of-concept, we hypothesize that biofeedback training in myopic children wearing MFCLs might improve the treatment effectiveness.

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

PURPOSE

To compare the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along three visual field meridians of 16 commercial single vision (SV), bifocal (BF) and multifocal (MF) test contact lenses with a single vision control.

METHOD

Forty-four participants [24.2±2.4 years, SE: -0.50 to -4.50D] were randomly fitted, contra-laterally, with 6 SV's [Air Optix Aqua (control), Acuvue Oasys, Biofinity, Clariti, Night & Day and Proclear], 3 BF's [Acuvue Bifocal low and high add, MiSight] and 8 MF's [Proclear D & N in 1.5 and 2.5D adds; AirOptix, PureVision low & high adds]. Peripheral refraction was performed across horizontal, oblique and vertical meridians, with lenses on eye using the BHVI-EyeMapper. The power vectors M, J₀, J₄₅ and the spherical aberration coefficient were analysed. The peripheral refraction and aberration profiles of the test lenses were compared with the profiles of the control lens using curvature and slope coefficients.

RESULTS

Compared to the control, a relative peripheral hyperopic shift (M), a less negative J₀ curvature coefficient along the horizontal meridian, a less positive J₀ curvature coefficient along the vertical meridian, a less negative J₄₅ curvature coefficient along the oblique meridian and a more positive spherical aberration curvature coefficient along most meridians was seen with the Acuvue Bifocal and all center-near multifocal lenses. For the center-distance multifocal lenses the direction of the curvature coefficients of the same refraction and aberration components was opposite to that of the center-near lenses. The greatest differences in the slope coefficients when compared to the control were found for the Acuvue Bifocal lenses and all multifocal contact lenses for the refractive component M and the spherical aberration coefficient along the horizontal visual field meridian, with the Acuvue Bifocal and the center-near multifocal lenses having more positive coefficients and the center-distance lenses having more negative coefficients.

CONCLUSION

When worn on eye, different commercially available lens types produce differences in the direction and magnitude of the peripheral refraction and spherical aberration profiles along different visual field meridians. This information may be relevant to refractive development and myopia control.

Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in subjects wearing multifocal contact lenses with high additions designed for myopia progression control

OBJECTIVES

To assess the visual performance of multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) with high addition powers designed for myopia control.

METHODS

Twenty-four non-presbyopic adults (mean age 24 years, range 18-36 years) were fitted with soft MFCLs with add powers of +2.0 D (Add2) and +4.0 D (Add4) (RELAX, SwissLens) and single vision lenses (SVCL; Add0) in a counterbalanced order. In this double-masked study, half of the participants were randomly fitted with 3 mm-distance central zone MFCLs while the other half received 4.5 mm-distance central zone MFCLs. Visual acuity was measured at distance (3.0 m) and at near (0.4 m). Central and peripheral contrast sensitivity was evaluated at distance using the Gabor patch test. The area under the logarithmic contrast sensitivity function curve (ALCSF) was calculated and compared between the groups (i.e. different additions powers used).

RESULTS

Near and distance visual acuities were not affected by the lenses, neither Add2 nor Add4, when compared to Add0, however, CZ3 significantly reduced distance visual acuity with Add4 when compared to CZ4.5 (-0.08 logMAR vs. for CZ3 and -0.18 logMAR for CZ4.5, p = 0.013). MFCLs impaired central ALCSF only when Add2 was used (15.99 logCS for Add2 and 16.36 logCS for SVCLs, p = 0.021). Peripheral ALCSF was statistically lower for both addition powers of the MFCLs when compared to SVCLs (12.70 for Add2 and Add4, 13.73 for SVCLs, p = 0.009). The above effects were the same for both central zones used.

CONCLUSIONS

MFCLs with CZ3 diameter and high add power (Add4) slightly reduced distance visual acuity when compared to CZ4.5 but no reduction in this parameter was found with medium add power (Add2). Central contrast sensitivity was impaired only by MFCLs with the lower add power (Add2). Both add powers in the MFCLs reduced peripheral contrast sensitivity to a similar extent.

Visual Performance of Daily-disposable Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses: A Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial

SIGNIFICANCE

The present study highlights the differences between modern daily-disposable multifocal soft contact lenses to assist eye care practitioners in fitting presbyopic contact lens wearers.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare visual performance of three daily-disposable multifocal contact lenses.

METHODS

Presbyopes (n = 72) wore 1-Day Acuvue Moist Multifocal, BioTrue ONEday for Presbyopia, and Dailies AquaComfort Plus Multifocal for 1 week in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. After 1 week, high- and low-contrast visual acuities (HCVA, LCVA) were measured between 6 m and 40 cm and stereopsis at 40 cm. Subjective performance was assessed with 1- to 10-point rating scales for clarity, ghosting, driving vision, vision stability, ease of focusing, overall vision satisfaction, and ocular comfort. Willingness to purchase was reported with categorical responses. Linear mixed models and χ tests were used for analysis, and level of significance was set at 5%.

RESULTS

BioTrue provided better HCVA and LCVA at distance than did Acuvue Moist (P ≤ .03). Subjectively, Acuvue Moist was rated lowest for distance clarity, distance ghosting, and driving vision (P ≤ .05). Acuvue Moist provided better HCVA at 70 to 40 cm and LCVA at 1 m to 40 cm than did BioTrue (P ≤ .01) and better LCVA at 1 m to 50 cm than did AquaComfort Plus (P ≤ .02). AquaComfort Plus also provided better HCVA and LCVA at 50 and 40 cm than did BioTrue (P ≤ .03). Acuvue Moist provided better stereopsis than did BioTrue (P = .02). Subjectively, BioTrue was rated lowest for near clarity (P ≤ .007) and lower than Acuvue Moist for intermediate clarity and near ghosting (P ≤ .04). No other differences were found between lenses (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

BioTrue had better distance performance compared with near, whereas Acuvue Moist performed conversely. AquaComfort Plus performed reasonably overall.

IMI - Clinical Myopia Control Trials and Instrumentation Report

The evidence-basis based on existing myopia control trials along with the supporting academic literature were reviewed; this informed recommendations on the outcomes suggested from clinical trials aimed at slowing myopia progression to show the effectiveness of treatments and the impact on patients. These outcomes were classified as primary (refractive error and/or axial length), secondary (patient reported outcomes and treatment compliance), and exploratory (peripheral refraction, accommodative changes, ocular alignment, pupil size, outdoor activity/lighting levels, anterior and posterior segment imaging, and tissue biomechanics). The currently available instrumentation, which the literature has shown to best achieve the primary and secondary outcomes, was reviewed and critiqued. Issues relating to study design and patient selection were also identified. These findings and consensus from the International Myopia Institute members led to final recommendations to inform future instrumentation development and to guide clinical trial protocols.

Retardation of Myopia Progression by Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses

Myopia is an important public health problem due to its prevalence and significant public health cost. Elevating levels of myopia increase the risk of vision impairment, and therefore, high myopia has become one of the main causes of untreatable vision loss throughout the world due to its irreversible complications. At present, many options for slowing progression of myopia have already been proposed and evaluated such as progressive addition of executive bifocal spectacle lenses, peripheral defocusing lenses, overnight orthokeratology, pharmacological agents such as atropine eye drops, and multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCLs). Use of MFSCLs has especially increased in recent years due to the growing demand to slow myopia progression during patient's adolescent growth period to avoid pathological myopia in adulthood. Compared with the other traditional methods of controlling myopia, MFSCLs allow myopic patients to better maintain their clear visual quality and slow myopia progression. In this manuscript, we aim to review the basics of myopia, recent advances in contact lenses to control myopia with emphasis on MFSCLs, define the elements for proper MFSCL fittings (such as pupil size, aberrations, accommodation and centering), discuss the potential rebound effect after discontinuation of contact lenses, and future directions for improvements of contact lenses for the control of myopia.

Combined Effect of Ocular and Multifocal Contact Lens Induced Aberrations on Visual Performance: Center-Distance Versus Center-Near Design

PURPOSE

To evaluate the combined effects of inherent ocular aberrations and induced aberrations with a multifocal soft contact lens (MFCL) after 15 days of lens wear in presbyopic participants and their influence on visual performance at distance and near under high and low contrast conditions.

METHODS

Forty presbyopic participants (mean age, 48.7±3.4) presenting a mean addition of 1.53±0.58 D were fitted with Biofinity Multifocal (CooperVision) and included in the study. Measurements comprised distance and near monocular high (100%) and low contrast (10%) logMAR visual acuity (VA). Ocular aberrations were obtained with Hartmann-Shack aberrometer (IRX3, Imagine Eyes) and analyzed for 2 mm and maximum round natural pupil.

RESULTS

Distance VA was significantly higher in dominant eye, whereas near VA was significantly better in the non-dominant eye (P<0.05 in all conditions). For a 2-mm pupil in the dominant eye fitted with MFCL, spherical-like aberration significantly increased (P=0.027) so as higher-order aberrations (HOA) (P=0.002). A significant increase was also observed in spherical-like aberrations (P=0.001), coma-like aberrations (P=0.006) and HOA (P=0.004) in non-dominant eye. For the maximum round natural pupil size, a significant decrease in vertical coma was observed (P=0.018) in dominant eye, whereas a significant increase in spherical-like (P<0.001) and coma-like aberrations (P=0.007) was observed in non-dominant eye. A negative significant correlation was found between vertical coma and high contrast VA (Rho=-0.405, P=0.011) in dominant eye; whereas in non-dominant eye, a significant correlation was found between induced secondary astigmatism and distance VA under high (Rho=0.556, P<0.001) and low contrast (Rho=0.448, P=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

On-eye visual performance of MFSCL is dependent on the high-order aberrations induced by dominant and non-dominant design coupled with the wearer's inherent aberrations.

Predicting Short-Term Subjective Vision Performance of Contact Lenses Used in Myopia Control

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether initial assessment of contact lenses prescribed for myopia control (MC) predicts short-term visual performance.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of 43 participants in a double-masked, randomized, cross-over trial wearing at least one lens: single-vision (SV) lens (1-DAY ACUVUE MOIST) or MC lenses (MiSight or Proclear Multifocal-Distance +2.00D). Participants completed questionnaires at the fitting visit, a take-home questionnaire (THQ) 3 days after fitting and finally at the assessment visit (≥5 days after fitting). Questions comprised vision clarity and lack of ghosting (distance, intermediate, near at day/night time); vision stability; driving vision; overall vision satisfaction and comfort (1-10 scale, 1-point steps); and willingness to purchase based on vision and MC benefit of lens (yes/no response). Visual acuity was measured at fitting and assessment visits.

RESULTS

Vision clarity (intermediate and near) was significantly worse at assessment compared with fitting while wearing MC lenses (P<0.001), as was overall vision satisfaction (P<0.001), comfort (P<0.001), and vision stability (P=0.001) while wearing either SV or MC lenses. Participants willing to purchase at assessment visit was 84% with SV and 36% with MC lenses, increasing to 88% (SV, P=1.00) and 61% (MC, P<0.001) if the lenses slowed myopia progression. Visual acuity was no different with either MC or SV lenses at fitting or assessment (P≥0.251).

CONCLUSION

Initial performance at fitting did not predict short-term performance for SV or MC lenses. A significant increase in willingness to purchase if lenses slowed myopia progression was observed while wearing MC lenses. Educating patients on the benefits might increase acceptability of MC lenses.

Visual Acuity and Over-refraction in Myopic Children Fitted with Soft Multifocal Contact Lenses

SIGNIFICANCE

Practitioners fitting contact lenses for myopia control frequently question whether a myopic child can achieve good vision with a high-add multifocal. We demonstrate that visual acuity is not different than spectacles with a commercially available, center-distance soft multifocal contact lens (MFCL) (Biofinity Multifocal "D"; +2.50 D add).

PURPOSE

To determine the spherical over-refraction (SOR) necessary to obtain best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) when fitting myopic children with a center-distance soft MFCL.

METHODS

Children (n = 294) aged 7 to 11 years with myopia (spherical component) of -0.75 to -5.00 diopters (D) (inclusive) and 1.00 D cylinder or less (corneal plane) were fitted bilaterally with +2.50 D add Biofinity "D" MFCLs. The initial MFCL power was the spherical equivalent of a standardized subjective refraction, rounded to the nearest 0.25 D step (corneal plane). An SOR was performed monocularly (each eye) to achieve BCVA. Binocular, high-contrast logMAR acuity was measured with manifest spectacle correction and MFCLs with over-refraction. Photopic pupil size was measured with a pupilometer.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) age was 10.3 ± 1.2 years, and the mean (±SD) SOR needed to achieve BCVA was OD: -0.61 ± 0.24 D/OS: -0.58 ± 0.27 D. There was no difference in binocular high-contrast visual acuity (logMAR) between spectacles (-0.01 ± 0.06) and best-corrected MFCLs (-0.01 ± 0.07) (P = .59). The mean (±SD) photopic pupil size (5.4 ± 0.7 mm) was not correlated with best MFCL correction or the over-refraction magnitude (both P ≥ .09).

CONCLUSIONS

Children achieved BCVA with +2.50 D add MFCLs that was not different than with spectacles. Children typically required an over-refraction of -0.50 to -0.75 D to achieve BCVA. With a careful over-refraction, these +2.50 D add MFCLs provide good distance acuity, making them viable candidates for myopia control.

Extended depth of focus contact lenses vs. two commercial multifocals: Part 2. Visual performance after 1 week of lens wear

PURPOSE

To compare the visual performance of prototype contact lenses designed via deliberate manipulation of higher-order spherical aberrations to extend-depth-of-focus with two commercial multifocals, after 1 week of lens wear.

METHODS

In a prospective, participant-masked, cross-over, randomized, 1-week dispensing clinical-trial, 43 presbyopes [age: 42-63 years] each wore AIROPTIX Aqua multifocal (AOMF), ACUVUE OASYS for presbyopia (AOP) and extended-depth-of-focus prototypes (EDOF) appropriate to their add requirements. Measurements comprised high-contrast-visual-acuity (HCVA) at 6m, 70cm, 50cm and 40cm; low-contrast-visual-acuity (LCVA) and contrast-sensitivity (CS) at 6m and stereopsis at 40cm. A self-administered questionnaire on a numeric-rating-scale (1-10) assessed subjective visual performance comprising clarity-of-vision and lack-of-ghosting at various distances during day/night-viewing conditions and overall-vision-satisfaction.

RESULTS

EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for HCVA averaged across distances (p≤0.038); significantly worse than AOMF for LCVA (p=0.021) and significantly worse than AOMF for CS in medium and high add-groups (p=0.006). None of these differences were clinically significant (≤2 letters). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for mean stereoacuity (36 and 13 seconds-of-arc, respectively: p≤0.05). For clarity-of-vision, EDOF was significantly better than AOP at all distances and AOMF at intermediate and near (p≤0.028). For lack-of-ghosting averaged across distances, EDOF was significantly better than AOP (p<0.001) but not AOMF (p=0.186). EDOF was significantly better than AOMF and AOP for overall-vision-satisfaction (p≤0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

EDOF provides better intermediate and near vision performance than either AOMF or AOP with no difference for distance vision after 1 week of lens wear.

Impact of Spherical Aberration Terms on Multifocal Contact Lens Performance

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of the primary (PSA) and secondary (SSA) spherical aberration terms on visual performance (VP) in presbyopes, as measured using multifocal (MFCL) soft contact lenses on eye.

METHODS

Seventeen presbyopes (age: 55.1 ± 6.9 years) wore seven commercial lenses (four center-near (MFCL N), one center-distance (MFCL D), one bifocal, and one single vision control). Unaided and with each lens on eye, the PSA and SSA terms were obtained with an aberrometer, the BHVI-EyeMapper (low illumination, natural and 4 mm pupil diameter). High- and low-contrast distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, high-contrast visual acuities at near, and range of clear vision were measured. In addition, subjective VP variables included clarity of vision at distance and near, ghosting, and overall vision satisfaction. Pearson's correlation was used to determine the association between the PSA and SSA terms and the VP variables.

RESULTS

PSA (natural pupil) was more negative (P < .05) with the MFCL N (mean PSA = -0.053 ± 0.080 μm) and bifocal (PSA = +0.005 ± 0.067 μm) lenses and more positive with the MFCL D lens (PSA = +0.208 ± 0.160 μm) than the control (+0.067 ± 0.072 μm). SSA (natural pupil) was significantly more positive for the MFCL N lenses (mean SSA = +0.025 ± 0.029 μm) compared to the control (SSA = -0.001 ± 0.017 μm). PSA and SSA terms were significantly (P < .05) correlated with 78% and 56% of VP variables, respectively, but the correlation coefficients were weak, ranging between |0.210| and |0.334|. Although distance variables showed improved VP with more positive PSA or negative SSA, most near variables showed improved VP with more negative PSA. Range of clear focus was greater for more negative PSA terms.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount and direction of PSA and SSA terms, as measured with different MFCLs on eye, can affect VP at different distances. Results of this study may provide useful information when designing new or optimize existing MFCLs for improved VP at specific distances.

Contact lenses to slow progression of myopia

The prevalence of myopia has been steadily rising, with 28 per cent of the global population said to be affected in 2010 and to rise to affect nearly 50 per cent by 2050. Increasing levels of myopia increase the risk of vision impairment and in particular, high myopia is associated with the risk of serious and permanent visual disability due to associated sight-threatening complications. To stem the burden associated with higher levels of myopia, there are efforts to slow the progression of myopia, and several optical and pharmaceutical strategies have been found useful in slowing myopia to varying degrees. More recently, numerous multifocal soft contact lenses and extended depth of focus soft contact lenses (collectively referred to as myopia control contact lenses) were found effective in slowing myopia. As opposed to overnight orthokeratology, myopia control contact lenses are worn during the day and the hypotheses proposed to explain the efficacy of these lenses are generally based on the premise that the stimulus for eye growth is a defocused retinal image with hyperopic blur either centrally or peripherally. Although the individual power profiles of the lenses vary, the contact lens generally incorporates 'positive power' to reduce the hyperopic blur and/or impose myopic defocus or in the case of the extended depth of focus lens, has a power profile designed to optimise retinal image quality for points on or in front of the retina. The use of soft contact lenses as a platform for myopia control offers an exciting and effective avenue to manage myopia but there is a need for further research on issues such as the mechanism underlying control of myopia, improving efficacy with lenses, and understanding rebound on discontinuation. More significantly, although contact lenses are generally safe and improve quality of life in older children, one of the major challenges for improved uptake and acceptance of contact lenses centres on the perceived risk of complications with lens wear. This issue needs to be addressed.

Impact of Contact Lens Material, Design, and Fitting on Discomfort

OBJECTIVE

To review the effect of contact lens (CL) material, design, and fitting characteristics on CL discomfort.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified publications describing subjective comfort and CL material, fitting, and design parameters. The review included clinical signs associated with discomfort that may be a consequence of these parameters.

RESULTS

Reduced lens movement or more CL tightness were associated with improved comfort. Increased lens-induced paralimbal conjunctival staining and indentation, considered as quasi-indicators of CL fitting or edge design, were also associated with better comfort. No recent studies have evaluated varying CL design parameters and subjective comfort. Silicone hydrogel CLs are no different in comfort compared with hydrogel CLs. Lower equilibrium water content is associated with improved comfort in hydrogel CL wear. Coefficient of friction shows promise as a material factor potentially associated with comfort. Lid wiper epitheliopathy and lid-parallel conjunctival folds have been linked with comfort in established wearers.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent studies have confirmed the association between more mobile CLs and more discomfort, whereas closer conformity of the CL to the bulbar conjunctiva improved subjective comfort. There is no evidence to support the perceived comfort difference between silicone hydrogel and hydrogel CL. There has been limited progress in understanding the impact of varying specific CL design parameters. Although specific clinical signs may be predictive of discomfort, their role in the natural history of discomfort remains unclear. A better understanding of the relationship between coefficient of friction and comfort and strategies to improve lubricity may hold promise for limiting CL discomfort.