Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2004
Archives of Ophth Dec 2004
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mike Tyner - 14 Dec 2004 22:28 GMT Nearsighted Children May Benefit from Rigid Contact Lenses
New research suggests that rigid gas permeable contact lenses may help slow the progression of nearsightedness, or myopia, in young children.
Newswise - New research suggests that rigid gas permeable contact lenses may help slow the progression of nearsightedness, or myopia, in young children.
At the end of a three-year study of more than a hundred 8- to 11-year olds, researchers determined that wearing rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses slowed the progression of myopia by nearly 30 percent, compared to soft contact lens wear.
Only recently did researchers find that young children could handle the responsibility of wearing contact lenses.
The corneas of the rigid contact lens wearers did not change as much as those of the soft contact lens wearers. This difference, which is not thought to be a permanent change, explains part of the difference between the RGP and soft contact lens wearers, said Jeffrey Walline, the study's lead author and an adjunct assistant professor of optometry at Ohio State University.
He and his colleagues caution that the RGP lenses won't stop myopia in its tracks, and also that the effects of these lenses probably aren't permanent. But the researchers also say that RGP lenses could be a good option for nearsighted children who can adapt to wearing them.
"Severe myopia, which is fairly rare, can lead to a detached retina and permanent vision loss or glaucoma," Walline said. "Theoretically, wearing RGP contact lenses could lessen the severity of myopia, and likewise the chances of developing one of these problems.
"But it's also a matter of convenience - keeping myopia's progression in check may mean that a child can see his bedside clock, or walk to the bathroom in the middle of the night without having to depend on glasses."
The study appears in the December 2004 issue of the journal Archives of Ophthalmology.
While myopia can develop at any age, it most often begins during childhood, around ages 6 to 8. Progression typically slows by the mid-teens.
The researchers evaluated 116 children who participated in the Contact Lens and Myopia Progression (CLAMP) Study at Ohio State. All children were given about two months to adapt to wearing the rigid contact lenses before the study officially began.
"It takes most children about two weeks to get used to this type of contact lens," Walline said. "We wanted to make sure the children could wear the rigid lenses for the long-term."
At the end of the two-month initiation period, children were randomly assigned to wear RGP contact lenses or two-week disposable soft contact lenses. Children returned to the optometry clinic each year for three years for annual vision checkups.
A nearsighted eye is typically longer than a normal eye, which results in blurred vision when looking at distant objects.
"To have a permanent effect, contact lenses would ideally slow the growth of the eyeball," Walline said. "The RGP contact lenses did not do that. However, they did maintain the shape of the cornea, whereas the cornea of the soft contact lens wearers became more curved. This increased corneal curve resulted in more myopia in the group that wore soft contact lenses."
The children in both groups wore their lenses an average of 70 hours a week. The researchers aren't sure how many hours a day a child would have to wear RGP lenses in order to slow the progression of nearsightedness.
"Rigid contact lenses may offer visual and eye health benefits that many soft contact lenses don't," Walline said. "These harder lenses allow more oxygen to reach the cornea than do most soft contact lenses, and they do a better job of correcting astigmatism.
"These factors, in addition to the modest myopia control, should be weighed against the initial discomfort that sometimes goes along with RGP lens wear when deciding what a child should use to correct his vision problems."
The current study also suggests that about four out of five children can adapt to wearing RGP lenses, which cost about $160 a year, Walline said. For comparison, disposable contact lenses - like the kind used in this study - cost about $260 a year.
Walline conducted the CLAMP study with Ohio State optometry colleagues Lisa Jones, Donald Mutti and Karla Zadnik, the Glenn A. Fry professor of optometry.
The CLAMP Study received funding from the National Eye Institute; Menicon Co, Ltd, CIBA Vision Corporation, and SOLA Optical - all contact lens manufacturers; and an American Optometric Foundation William C. Ezell Fellowship. The authors have no relevant financial interest in the sponsors of the study.
Dom - 15 Dec 2004 07:09 GMT Thanks Mike.... I didn't think this was 'new' research as the article suggested... I thought it was already established that RGP lenses are better for myopia progression. Anyway, this article: http://www.siliconehydrogels.org/editorials/index.asp raises some interesting points on the subject, suggesting that silicone hydrogels may even result in a reduction in myopia... I'm sure further research is needed yet, before we can really say this to be the case.
Dom
> Nearsighted Children May Benefit from Rigid Contact Lenses > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > Fellowship. The authors have no relevant financial interest in the sponsors > of the study. Dr. Leukoma - 15 Dec 2004 12:53 GMT > Thanks Mike.... I didn't think this was 'new' research as the article > suggested... I thought it was already established that RGP lenses are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dom Several points: Soft lens wear is associated with corneal steepening that is thought to be hypoxia related. Because silicone-hydrogels do not contribute to hypoxia, the cornea does not steepen. Also, si-hydrogels may create corneal flattening in some individuals. Neither of these effects has anything to do with axial myopia.
Similarly, the RGP study does not say that RGP lenses lead to changes in axial length. It only concluded that RGP lenses do not lead to corneal steepening in the way that soft lenses can.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't some research published in the future about the effect of RGP lenses on axial length via a reduction in some higher order aberrations.
DrG
>> Nearsighted Children May Benefit from Rigid Contact Lenses >> [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > sponsors >> of the study. > Nearsighted Children May Benefit from Rigid Contact Lenses > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > contact lenses slowed the progression of myopia by nearly 30 percent, > compared to soft contact lens wear. This study should be of more value if a third group of none wearers had been followed. Just a thought.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Dan Abel - 15 Dec 2004 20:58 GMT > Nearsighted Children May Benefit from Rigid Contact Lenses
> Only recently did researchers find that young children could handle the > responsibility of wearing contact lenses. I don't like this article. They put contact lenses in the eyes of little babies.
> "Severe myopia, which is fairly rare, can lead to a detached retina and > permanent vision loss or glaucoma," Walline said. "Theoretically, wearing > RGP contact lenses could lessen the severity of myopia, and likewise the > chances of developing one of these problems. Sounds like "Otis Brown" logic to me. Someone finds a correlation between A and B, and therefore concludes that A causes B. However, in many cases, it could be equally argued that B causes A. That isn't the case here, since the myopia generally precedes the other problems. Even so, this is Bad Science. First you need a theory, and then you need a mechanism. Without showing *how* A can cause B, you have no theory, just a correlation. After you develop a theory with a mechanism, you can use correlation to prove or disprove your theory. Without a mechanism, you run the grave risk of someone coming along with factor X, with a mechanism to show how X can cause A, and X can cause B, and a correlation that proves both.
Otis has proven a correlation between putting lenses on animals, and a change in refraction. However, he has no mechanism, and thus he has no theory. Furthermore, the ODs on this group have shown mechanisms to disprove his theory, and explanations as to how his "proof" doesn't apply to the uses he wishes for his theory.
As a counter-example to the original post, take myself. I was a high myope, and have been treated for high IOP and retinal detachment. I had cataract surgery in both eyes, and now am no longer myopic. Thus, I have no further risk of RD or glaucoma, correct? WRONG! I am right now being treated for high IOP (one drop in each eye every night). How could this be?
Many years ago I was a student at this place (Sonoma State University, where I still work). I supplemented our meager family income by working in a student computer lab. We had a very fast and powerful computer for academic (student and faculty) use, located in Southern California, and used by all 19 campuses. Nowadays, phone modems with a speed of 56,000 baud are considered almost too slow for most people. Our connections to this powerful computer back then were 300 baud, more than 150 times slower! We had two hardcopy terminals, which took several minutes to print out a page of output. There were a group of students doing a research project. They were using this computer with a sophisticated statistical package to analyze their data. They spent hours every day printing statistics, with graphs. I didn't really understand, since statistics usually summarize the data, but they didn't have any questions of me so I didn't know really what they were doing, other than using up a lot of paper. One day the students weren't there, but the faculty advisor for the project came into the lab. He asked me what I knew about their project, and what I knew about statistics. I replied that I didn't know what they were doing, but that I had taken a couple of college classes in statistics. He explained that their work involved 20 variables, and that they were running correlation statistics on every single pair of variables! They had no theories, and no mechanisms to explain causations. The professor didn't have much hair, but he wanted to tear out the little he had. He had tried to explain to them why they were doing Bad Science (he was a scientist, a geologist) but they wouldn't hear him. They were happy that they had found about 5% correlations. The professor looked at their statistics, and they were running the standard 95% confidence level. They refused to understand that even if their data was totally random, that at a 95% confidence level they will find 5% correlations.
> "But it's also a matter of convenience - keeping myopia's progression in > check may mean that a child can see his bedside clock, or walk to the > bathroom in the middle of the night without having to depend on glasses." This certainly makes sense to me.
> A nearsighted eye is typically longer than a normal eye, which results in > blurred vision when looking at distant objects. Ahah! Here we may have found our factor X. I have read both on this group and elsewhere, theories about how an abnormally long eye may cause both severe myopia and retinal detachments.
> The current study also suggests that about four out of five children can > adapt to wearing RGP lenses, which cost about $160 a year, Walline said. For > comparison, disposable contact lenses - like the kind used in this study - > cost about $260 a year. I wonder if most soft contact wearers know this. I certainly didn't.
 Signature Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net
Scott Seidman - 15 Dec 2004 22:09 GMT > Only recently did researchers find that young children could handle > the >> responsibility of wearing contact lenses. > > I don't like this article. They put contact lenses in the eyes of > little babies. Age 8-11 years, actually, with informed consent provided by parents, the study followed the Declaration of Helsinki requirements, and approved by the relevant institutional review board.
>> "Severe myopia, which is fairly rare, can lead to a detached retina >> and permanent vision loss or glaucoma," Walline said. "Theoretically, >> wearing RGP contact lenses could lessen the severity of myopia, and >> likewise the chances of developing one of these problems. > > Sounds like "Otis Brown" logic to me. Well, they do have data that they submitted for review, and published it, thus opening it to criticism of the ophthalmological community. Further, the treatment group was masked from the assessor.
> Someone finds a correlation > between A and B, and therefore concludes that A causes B. However, in > many cases, it could be equally argued that B causes A. That isn't > the case here, since the myopia generally precedes the other problems. > Even so, this is Bad Science. After finding many differences between press releases and published work, I've learned that you need to go to the paper before making conclusions or forming criticism. This press release, in particular, seems much rosier than the conclusions of the paper. Investigators don't get much say about what appears in the lay press, nor do scientific reviewers.
The abstract, in fact, ends with "The results of the study provide information for eye care practitioners to share with their patients, but they do not indicate that RGPs should be prescribed primarily for myopia control." You certainly wouldn't get that out of this press release
> First you need a theory, and then you > need a mechanism. Without showing *how* A can cause B, you have no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with factor X, with a mechanism to show how X can cause A, and X can > cause B, and a correlation that proves both. I think if you read the paper, you'd be somewhat more satisfied. In fact, my interpretation is that these authors, unlike those of some previous studies, don't hold out much hope for the use of RGPs being used primarily for myopia control. They also do not believe that any change in myopic progression will be permanent. The hypothesis put forth is one of corneal shaping.
Scott
Dan Abel - 16 Dec 2004 00:12 GMT > > Only recently did researchers find that young children could handle > > the > >> responsibility of wearing contact lenses.
> > I don't like this article. They put contact lenses in the eyes of > > little babies.
> Age 8-11 years, actually, with informed consent provided by parents, the > study followed the Declaration of Helsinki requirements, and approved by > the relevant institutional review board. I couldn't figure out what the heck you were posting about, even reading several times. Then I read what I wrote several times, and realized that I had worded it very badly. What I didn't like about this part of the press release was they were saying that it was just discovered that you can use contacts in kids. My response was that doctors have been putting contacts in little babies for years. This is *not* a recent discovery, as far as I know.
> >> "Severe myopia, which is fairly rare, can lead to a detached retina > >> and permanent vision loss or glaucoma," Walline said. "Theoretically, > >> wearing RGP contact lenses could lessen the severity of myopia, and > >> likewise the chances of developing one of these problems.
> > Sounds like "Otis Brown" logic to me.
> Well, they do have data that they submitted for review, and published it, > thus opening it to criticism of the ophthalmological community. Further, > the treatment group was masked from the assessor. I don't have a problem with the study (not that I've read it), but with the statement that a reduction in myopia might lead to a reduction in glaucoma and retinal detachment.
> > Someone finds a correlation > > between A and B, and therefore concludes that A causes B. However, in > > many cases, it could be equally argued that B causes A. That isn't > > the case here, since the myopia generally precedes the other problems. > > Even so, this is Bad Science.
> After finding many differences between press releases and published work, > I've learned that you need to go to the paper before making conclusions > or forming criticism. This press release, in particular, seems much > rosier than the conclusions of the paper. Investigators don't get much > say about what appears in the lay press, nor do scientific reviewers. In fairness to myself, I have not read the study, and my criticisms apply to the press release posted to this group.
> I think if you read the paper, you'd be somewhat more satisfied. Could be, but I'm no technical person about these things. I'm just criticizing what was posted to this group, in the hope that someone would either agree or set me straight.
 Signature Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net
|
|
|