A number of optical methods for slowing myopia progression have been tested and are now available. However, data on real-world use in clinical use is scarce. Here, we present a review of the clinical outcomes for patients attending a specialist myopia control clinic at The University of Auckland Optometry School, NZ.
We report a comparative case series of 110 patients (aged 4–33 years, mean: 12.13 ± 4.58 years, 62% female) who attended the clinic between 2010 and 2014. Fifty-six were prescribed orthokeratology, 32 dual focus soft contact lenses, and 22 received advice only. Initial myopia, vitreous and axial eye length, previous myopia progression, age, number of myopic parents, and gender were not significantly different between orthokeratology and dual focus soft contact lens groups. Mean follow-up time for the orthokeratology and dual focus lens groups was the same (orthokeratology: 1.30 ± 0.88 years; dual focus lens: 1.33 ± 0.80 years (p = 0.989)). There was a significant reduction in the annualized myopia progression in both groups (orthokeratology: −1.17 ± 0.55 to −0.09 ± 017 D/yr, p < 0.001; dual focus soft contact lens: −1.15 ± 0.46 to −0.10 ± 0.23 D/yr, p < 0.001). There was no difference between orthokeratology and dual focus lens treatment efficacy (p = 0.763), nor in axial or vitreous chamber length changes after treatment (p = 0.184). One adverse event was reported over the 4-year period.
Both orthokeratology and dual focus soft contact lenses are effective strategies for targeting myopia progression in the clinic. We saw no significant difference in the efficacy of the two methods in this regard, and so we believe there are very few barriers for any contact lens practitioner to be actively promoting myopia control treatment to at-risk patients.
School of Optometry and Vision Science, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (all authors).
Philip Turnbull School of Optometry and Vision Science The University of Auckland 85 Park Rd, Grafton, Auckland 1023 New Zealand e-mail: email@example.com