Myopia Profile

Science

Visual Performance In MiSight 1 day

Posted on March 3rd 2022 by Ailsa Lane research paper.png

In this article:

This study investigated the visual performance of CooperVision MiSight and Proclear Multifocal contact lenses in comparison to best-corrected distance spectacle acuity in a group of young adults.  There were no differences in objective or subjective visual performance between the MiSight and Proclear, but worse performance in some visual conditions and subjective ratings compared to spectacles.


Paper title: Vision Performance With a Contact Lens Designed to Slow Myopia Progression

Authors: Kollbaum, Pete (1); Jansen, Meredith; Tan, Jacqueline; Meyer, Dawn; Rickert, Martin.

  1. Indiana University School of Optometry, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

Reference: Kollbaum PS, Jansen ME, Tan J, Meyer DM, Rickert ME. Vision performance with a contact lens designed to slow myopia progression. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Mar;90(3):205-14

[Link to abstract]


Summary

This study investigated the visual acceptability of CooperVision MiSight and Proclear Multifocal (+2.00D Add) contact lenses in comparison to best-corrected distance spectacle acuity. 24 subjects aged 18-25 years wore contact lenses for one week and results indicate no discernible differences in objective or subjective visual performance between the two CL types, but worse performance in some visual conditions and subjective ratings compared to spectacles. In high illuminance/high contrast conditions, contact lenses performed as well as spectacles with all findings around -0.1logMAR (6/5 or 20.16). Distance and intermediate acuity under low illuminance/low contrast conditions was poorer by around half a line and visual quality ratings at different viewing distances reduced by around 15-25% for both contact lens types compared to spectacles. No significant differences, though, were found between the two contact lens types. Overall, participants reported their daytime vision as better than their nighttime vision regardless of lens type, with the largest impact on distance vision than on intermediate or near. Interestingly, there were no clear correlations between reduced acuity findings and greater patient-reported loss of visual performance, indicating a mismatch between patient signs and symptoms.


What does this mean for my practice?

While a small decrease in some aspects of visual performance may be experienced in the new contact lenses designed for myopia progression, good acuity (similar to that achieved with typical MF contact lenses), can be achieved. Importantly, there were no differences in objective or subjective visual performance between the MiSight and Proclear contact lenses. 


What do we still need to learn?

Further research is required to determine if the results would be similar in children. Additionally, this study was conducted over a 1 week period and further research is required to determine if the visual performance issues persist in longer term wear.


Abstract

Title: Vision Performance With a Contact Lens Designed to Slow Myopia Progression

Authors: Pete Kollbaum, Meredith Jansen, Jacqueline Tan, Dawn Meyer, Martin Rickert.

Purpose: Recent research suggests multizone/dual-focus (DF) lens corrections may aid in controlling the progression of myopia. Recently, such a soft contact lens has become commercially available in Hong Kong (MiSight, CooperVision). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the visual acceptability of this new lens design.

Methods: In a double-masked, randomized, crossover trial, 24 subjects (aged 18 to 25 years) wore MiSight contact lenses and Proclear Multifocal +2.00 diopters Add D (MF) soft contact lenses. Patient-reported outcomes (0 to 100 scale) and objective measures of visual performance were acquired for best-spectacle distance correction (BC) and with each contact lens after 1 week of daily use at HIHC (high illumination–high contrast) at distance and LILC (low illumination–low contrast) at distance, intermediate, and near

Results: There were no significant differences in HIHC distance acuity between BC and either the DF or MF lens and no difference between the DF and MF lenses. However, when measured under LILC, there were significant mean differences between each study lens and BC viewed at distance and intermediate. The LILC logMAR visual acuity was not significantly different between the DF and MF lenses at any viewing distance. Although average visual quality and ghosting ratings for both DF and MF study lenses were significantly lower than habitual under all conditions, there were no significant differences between the DF and MF lenses (p = 0.448).

Conclusions: Good acuity, similar to that attainable with typical MF lens correction, is attainable with a new contact lens designed to control myopia progression. However, like other contact lenses that contain multiple refractive zones, some decrease in visual performance may be experienced.

[Link to abstract]


Meet the Authors:

About Ailsa Lane

Ailsa Lane is a contact lens optician based in Kent, England. She is currently completing her Advanced Diploma In Contact Lens Practice with Honours, which has ignited her interest and skills in understanding scientific research and finding its translations to clinical practice.

Read Ailsa's work in the SCIENCE domain of MyopiaProfile.com.

Back to all articles

Enormous thanks to our visionary sponsors

Myopia Profile’s growth into a world leading platform has been made possible through the support of our visionary sponsors, who share our mission to improve children’s vision care worldwide. Click on their logos to learn about how these companies are innovating and developing resources with us to support you in managing your patients with myopia.