Accommodation and its role in myopia progression and control with soft contact lenses

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of contact lens optical design on accommodative behaviour of children and the correlation between myopia progression and the accommodative response of the eye while wearing a contact lens designed for myopia control. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was conducted on data from a previously published myopia control trial. A total of 109 subjects (aged 8 to 11 years, myopia: -0.75 to -4.00 D) wore either a Control (single-vision, n = 57) or a Test (with positive spherical aberration, +SA, n = 52) soft contact lens, binocularly for 1 year. Accommodative response was measured as the subject observed targets at -1.00 to -4.00 D vergence using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor (www.grandseiko.com). Slope of accommodative response (SAR) as well as distance and near phoria and stimulus accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) were compared between each group at baseline without study lenses and at 1-week and 1-year visits with study lenses. The SAR was also compared to changes in axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent cycloplegic auto refraction (SECAR). RESULTS: At baseline, there was no significant difference in SAR between the two study groups (ΔSAR = -0.039, p = 0.84). At 1 week, mean SAR of the Test group was significantly less than for the Control group (ΔSAR = -0.203, p < 0.0001), an effect that persisted to 1 year (ΔSAR = -0.129, p < 0.0001). In the Test group, greater SAR was associated with less change in AL (regression coefficient: -0.59 mm, p < 0.0001) and SECAR (regression coefficient: 1.12 D, p = 0.006) at 1 year. In the Control group, associations between SAR and change in AL and SECAR were not statistically significant. Compared to the Control group, eyes of the Test group appeared to be more exophoric with study lenses, however, the difference between the two groups was only significant at 1 week for distance phoria and 1 year for near phoria. CONCLUSION: The soft contact lens with +SA for controlling myopia progression resulted in an apparent decrease in mean accommodation. Within the Test group, reduced accommodative response correlated with greater myopia progression, suggesting some subjects in the Test group utilised the +SA for near viewing, inducing hyperopic defocus at the retina. Accordingly, the potential impact of a lens optics on accommodative function should be considered during design of myopia control lenses.