Low concentration atropine and myopia: a narrative review of the evidence for United Kingdom based practitioners

Myopia control: Seeing beyond efficacy

SIGNIFICANCE

The availability of a range of effective myopia control modalities enables the clinician to exercise judgment when discussing the treatment plan with the patient and their parents. This article outlines important considerations beyond efficacy.Clinically meaningful myopia control may be attained with some spectacle lenses, select soft contact lenses, some concentrations of atropine, and overnight orthokeratology. Given that satisfactory efficacy can be achieved with a range of modalities, other factors should be considered when deciding upon the best intervention for a given child. Four key factors-compliance, quality of vision, quality of life, and safety-are discussed in this review. Compliance directly impacts efficacy regardless of the modality and is the most important consideration, as it is influenced by quality of vision and comfort. Daily disposal myopia control contact lenses and overnight orthokeratology are generally associated with high compliance, provide better vision-related quality of life than spectacles, and carry a very low risk when used appropriately. A further benefit of overnight orthokeratology is the elimination of a need for optical correction during the day.

Optical interventions for myopia control

A range of optical interventions have been developed to slow the progression of myopia. This review summarizes key studies and their outcomes. Peer-reviewed, randomized controlled clinical trials of at least 18 months duration were identified. Randomized clinical trials were identified and summarised: 13 for spectacles, 5 for overnight orthokeratology, 5 for soft contact lenses, and 3 for orthokeratology combined with low concentration atropine. Overnight orthokeratology trials were the most consistent with 2-year slowing of axial elongation between 0.24 and 0.32 mm. Other modalities were more variable due to the wide range of optical designs. Among spectacle interventions, progressive addition lenses were the least effective, slowing axial elongation and myopia progression by no more than 0.11 mm and 0.31 D, respectively. In contrast, novel designs with peripheral lenslets slow 2-year elongation and progression by up to 0.35 mm and 0.80 D. Among soft contact lens interventions, medium add concentric bifocals slow 3-year elongation and progression by only 0.07 mm and 0.16 D, while a dual-focus design slows 3-year elongation and progression by 0.28 mm and 0.67 D. In summary, all three optical interventions have the potential to significantly slow myopia progression. Quality of vision is largely unaffected, and safety is satisfactory. Areas of uncertainty include the potential for post-treatment acceleration of progression and the benefit of adding atropine to optical interventions.

Juvenile-onset myopia-who to treat and how to evaluate success

The risk of eye diseases such as myopic macular degeneration increases with the level of myopia, but there is no safe level of myopia and the burden of lower degrees of myopia remains considerable. Effective treatments are available that slow progression and thus limit the final degree of myopia. In this review, the rationale for slowing progression is summarized, and a case made for treating all myopic children. Measurement of refractive error and axial length is reviewed, stressing the precision of optical biometry, but also the need for cycloplegic autorefraction. The factors influencing progression are considered and the available tools for interpretation of progression rate are discussed. Finally, the need to set attainable treatment goals is emphasized.