Evaluation of Lag of Accommodation with Full-Field Diffusion Optics Technology™ (DOT) Contrast Management Spectacle Lenses in Emmetropic Children

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the impact on the lag of accommodation (LOA) in emmetropic children after short-term wear of full-field Diffusion Optics Technology^TM (DOT) spectacle lenses, designed to modulate retinal contrast to control myopia progression.

Patients and Methods

This was a single-visit, prospective, randomized, subject-masked study of emmetropes (ametropes ±1.00D or less in each meridian) with no history of myopia control treatment. Unaided logMAR visual acuity was measured, and ocular dominance was determined using the sighting method. In a randomized order, participants wore plano full-field contrast management (DOT) spectacles (no clear central aperture) or control spectacles (standard single vision spectacle lenses). Each participant was given 5 minutes for adaptation to the respective lenses before open field autorefraction measurements were taken at 6 meters and 40 cm. Ten measurements were taken for each eye. Data were evaluated from the right eye and the dominant eye separately.

Results

A total of 30 participants (20 females and 10 males) with a mean age of 10.4 ± 2.8 (7 to 17) years completed the study. There was no significant difference in right eye mean LOA with contrast management spectacles 0.57 ± 0.39D versus control spectacles 0.62 ± 0.34D; Wilcoxon test, p = 0.37. For dominant eyes, LOA values were 0.60 ± 0.40D and 0.68 ± 0.33D with contrast management spectacles and control spectacles, respectively (p = 0.14). Additionally, no significant difference was observed in mean LOA between males and females or between age groups (7–11 years vs 12–17 years) for either right or dominant eyes with contrast management or control spectacles (all p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Full-field contrast management spectacle lenses had no significant effect on LOA compared to standard single vision spectacle lenses, indicating no differential impact on accommodative response over the short period of lens wear tested.

Keywords:

• myopia
• children
• accommodation
• contrast
• spectacles
• Diffusion Optics Technology
• DOT
• contrast management optics

Acknowledgments

A special thanks to Dr Debbie Jones for her enormous support in study participant recruitment. I would like to thank Dr Vivian Choh for her help in analyzing the study results and I also acknowledge the general support I received from Dr Elizabeth Irving in the conduct of this study.

Disclosure

Jennifer S Hill is an employee of SightGlass Vision.

All other authors are members of CORE, who received partial funding from SightGlass Vision to conduct this work. Over the past 3 years, CORE has received research support from Alcon, Azura Ophthalmics, Bausch & Lomb Corp, CooperVision, Essilor, Hoya, iMed Pharma, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Menicon, Novartis, Ophtecs, Ote Pharma, Santen, SightGlass, SightSage, Topcon and Visioneering.

Lyndon Jones reports grants from SightGlass, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees from Alcon, grants from Azura Ophthalmics, grants from Bausch + Lomb, grants, personal fees from CooperVision, grants from Essilor, grants from Hoya, grants from IMedPharma, personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, grants, personal fees from Menicon, grants, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Ophtecs, grants from Ote Pharma, grants from Santen, grants from SightGlass, grants from SightSage, grants from Topcon, grants, personal fees from Visioneering, outside the submitted work. Jill Woods reports personal fees from SightGlass Vision, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.