ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5071-9772
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2023
DOI: 10.1016/J.CLAE.2022.101597
Abstract: There remains a lack of information on the perception and adoption of myopia control strategies among African eye care practitioners (ECPs). This study provides an African perspective to similar previous studies conducted in other parts of the world. A self-administered survey in English and French was distributed to ECPs across Africa. The items on the questionnaire assessed their level of concern about the increasing prevalence of paediatric myopia, perceived efficacy, opinions on, and adoption of various myopia management modalities. Responses were obtained from 330 ECPs working in 23 African countries. Respondents were highly concerned about the increasing prevalence of paediatric myopia in their clinic (median 8/10) and perceived approved myopia control soft contact lenses as the most effective at slowing myopia progression (mean perceived reduction in myopia progression ± SD 53.9 ± 27.1%), followed by single vision spectacles (53.1 ± 30.9%), and orthokeratology (52.8 ± 28.0%). Multifocal soft contact lenses (40.4 ± 25.8%) and pharmaceutical agents such as topical atropine drops (39.5 ± 27.1%) were perceived as least effective in slowing myopia progression. Although ECPs reported being aware of various myopia control strategies, they still mainly prescribed single vision spectacles to a large proportion (64.3 ± 29.9%) of young progressing myopes. Nearly one-third (27%) of ECPs who prescribed single vision lenses stated they were concerned about the cost implications to patients. Other reported concerns included safety of, and inadequate information about myopia control options. African ECPs continue to prescribe single vision lenses for progressing myopes despite being aware of the various myopia control options. Practitioners' perceptions of the efficacy of several modalities to slow myopia progression do not align with the current best evidence. Clear practice guidelines and continuing education on myopia control are warranted to inform and guide the management of myopic patients in Africa.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 08-2021
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 03-02-2022
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001874
Abstract: The contrast sensitivity (CS) function provides a more detailed assessment of vision than visual acuity. It was found that center-distance multifocal contact lens designs that are increasingly being prescribed for myopia control reduce distance photopic and mesopic CS in nonpresbyopic patients across a range of spatial frequencies. This study aimed to determine the effect of center-distance multifocal soft contact lenses (MFCLs) on CS under photopic and mesopic conditions in nonpresbyopic patients. Twenty-five myopic, nonpresbyopic adults were fitted binocularly with three lenses: Biofinity single vision contact lens (SVCL), Biofinity Multifocal D +2.50 add, and NaturalVue Multifocal in random order. Contrast sensitivity was measured at distance (4 m) under photopic and mesopic conditions and at near under photopic conditions. Log CS by spatial frequency and area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) were analyzed between lenses. Distance photopic CS at each spatial frequency was higher with the SVCL than the MFCLs ( P .001), but there was no difference between the MFCLs ( P = .71). Distance mesopic CS from 1.5 to 12 cycles per degree (cpd) was higher with the SVCL than the MFCLs (all P .02) however, at 18 cpd, there was no difference in CS between NaturalVue and the SVCL ( P = .76), possibly because of spurious resolution. Photopic AULCSF for the SVCL was roughly 10% greater than both MFCLs. Contrast sensitivity at near was generally similar between lenses, only slightly lower with the NaturalVue at 11 and 15.5 cpd, but AULCSF at near was not different between lenses ( P .05). Multifocal contact lenses reduce distance contrast sensitivity under both photopic and mesopic conditions. There is no clinically significant difference in near CS among all three lenses. These data show that MFCLs have effects on vision that are not captured by standard high-contrast visual acuity testing.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 03-2021
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001665
Abstract: With multifocal contact lenses (MFCLs) used for myopia control, questions remain regarding visual performance. Information from nonpresbyopic patients provides insight into how MFCLs affect visual acuity and reading performance. The purpose of this study was to examine the visual performance of center-distance MFCLs in nonpresbyopic adults under different illumination and contrast conditions compared with a single-vision contact lens (SVCL). Twenty-five adult subjects were fit with three different lenses (CooperVision Biofinity D MFCL +2.50 add, Visioneering Technologies NaturalVue MFCL, CooperVision Biofinity sphere). Acuity and reading performance were evaluated. A statistically significant difference in high-contrast distance acuity was observed (Biofinity, −0.18 ± 0.06 Biofinity MFCL, −0.14 ± 0.08 NaturalVue MFCL, −0.15 ± 0.03 repeated-measures [RM] ANOVA, P = .02). Under mesopic, high-contrast conditions, MFCLs performed worse than SVCLs (Biofinity, −0.05 ± 0.091 Biofinity MFCL, +0.03 ± 0.09 NaturalVue MFCL, +0.05 ± 0.091 RM-ANOVA, P .0001). Under low-contrast conditions, MFCLs performed one line worse in photopic lighting and two lines worse under mesopic conditions (RM-ANOVA, P .0001). Glare reduced acuity by 0.5 logMAR for all lenses (RM-ANOVA, P .001). A statistically significant difference in near acuity was observed (RM-ANOVA, P = .02), but all lenses achieved acuity better than −0.1 logMAR (Biofinity, −0.16 ± 0.06 Biofinity MFCL, −0.17 ± 0.04 NaturalVue MFCL, −0.13 ± 0.08). Reading performance in words per minute (wpm) was worse with MFCLs (Biofinity MFCL, 144 ± 22 wpm NaturalVue MFCL, 150 ± 28 wpm) than with SVCLs (156 ± 23 wpm RM-ANOVA, P = .02) regardless of letter size (RM-ANOVA, P = .13). No difference in acuity between the MFCLs was detected (RM-ANOVA: all, P .05). Multifocal contact lenses perform similarly to SVCLs for high-contrast targets and display reduced low-contrast acuity and reading speed. Practitioners should recognize that high-contrast acuity alone does not describe MFCL visual performance.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Augustine N Nti.