Myopia is a refractive error that typically develops during adolescence to cause poor distance vision. It is associated with an increased risk of sight-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma, maculopathy, and retinal detachment.¹ Successful randomized clinical trials of interventions designed to slow childhood myopia progression suggest it would be beneficial to identify children at high risk of myopia development, who would benefit most from early treatment intervention.^2-5 Currently, the best predictor of children at risk is a low hyperopic refractive error at an age before myopia typically manifests,⁶ suggesting that a screening regimen of cycloplegic autorefraction would be an effective approach. However, the necessity for cycloplegia in young children makes this strategy resource and time expensive. Furthermore, as the transition from moderate to low hyperopia may be part of the process of myopia development, cycloplegic autorefraction screening may detect children too late if the aim is to instigate a prophylactic intervention.

Soft contact lenses have been developed and licensed for reducing myopia progression. These lenses have different designs, such as extended depth of focus (EDOF) and dual focus (DF). In this prospective, double-masked, cross-over study, different lens designs were investigated to see whether these had impact on accommodative microfluctuations and eye movements during reading. Participants were fitted with three lenses in a randomised order; a single vision (SV) design (Omafilcon A2; Proclear), a DF design (Omafilcon A2; MiSight), and an EDOF lens design (Etafilcon A; NaturalVue),. Accommodative microfluctuations were measured at 25 cm for at least 60s in each lens, using a Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor adapted to continuously record accommodation at 22Hz. Eye movement data was collected with the Thomson Clinical Eye Tracker incorporating a Tobii Eye bar. Eye movements include fixations per row, fixations per minute, mean regressions per row, total number of regressions, and total rightward saccades. Accommodation data was analysed using power spectrum analysis. Differences between the lenses were compared using a related sample two-way Friedman test. Twenty-three participants (18-29 years) were recruited to take part. The average mean spherical error was -2.65D ± 1.42DS, with an average age of 23.4 ± 3.5 years. No significant difference for accommodative microfluctuations was found. Significant differences were found for fixations per row (P = 0.03), fixations per minute (P = 0.008), mean regressions per row (P = 0.002), and total number of regressions (P = 0.002), but not total rightward saccades (P = 0.10). Post-hoc analysis indicated the EDOF lens results were significantly different from the other lenses, with more regressive eye movements observed. Regressive saccades appear to increase when wearing EDOF lens designs, which may impact visual comfort. Further studies in children, over a longer period of adaptation are necessary to assess the potential impact of this finding on daily reading activities in children.

Introduction: This work aimed to establish the largest UK and Ireland consensus on myopia management in children and young people (CYP). Methods: A modified Delphi consensus was conducted with a panel of 34 optometrists and ophthalmologists with expertise in myopia management. Results: Two rounds of voting took place and 131 statements were agreed, including that interventions should be discussed with parents/carers of all CYP who develop myopia before the age of 13 years, a recommendation for interventions to be publicly funded for those at risk of fast progression and high myopia, that intervention selection should take into account the CYP's hobbies and lifestyle and that additional training for eye care professionals should be available from non‐commercial sources. Topics for which published evidence is limited or lacking were areas of weaker or no consensus. Modern myopia management contact and spectacles are suitable first‐line treatments. The role and provision of low‐concentration atropine needs to be reviewed once marketing authorisations and funding decisions are in place. There is some evidence that a combination of low‐concentration atropine with an optical intervention can have an additive effect; further research is needed. Once an intervention is started, best practice is to monitor non‐cycloplegic axial length 6 monthly. Conclusion: Research is needed to identify those at risk of progression, the long‐term effectiveness of individual and combined interventions, and when to discontinue treatment when myopia has stabilised. As further evidence continues to emerge, this consensus work will be repeated to ensure it remains relevant.

Objective Many children with progressive myopia are still prescribed single-vision correction. An investigation into UK eyecare practitioners’ (ECPs) perceptions of myopia management was carried out to ascertain factors which may be limiting its implementation and uptake within clinical practice. Methods and analysis Online focus groups were held with UK ECPs. Participants were encouraged to discuss their knowledge of the available myopia management options, their perception of how myopia management is being delivered in the UK and any barriers limiting ECPs' prescribing of these management options in practice. The discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results Focus groups were held with 41 ECPs from primary and secondary eyecare. ECPs felt that provision of myopia management in the UK is variable. Most ECPs believe they have sufficient knowledge, but felt a lack of confidence in decision-making and practical experience. Less experienced ECPs sought more definitive guidance to support their decision-making. ECPs desired clarity on their duty of care obligations and were concerned over possible future litigation if they had not offered, or referred for, myopia management when indicated. The greatest barrier appears to be financial—treatment is expensive and ECPs are uncomfortable communicating this to parents. Many barriers were indicative of systemic problems within UK eyecare, such as commercial pressures, inadequate National Health Service funding and poor public awareness of paediatric eyecare. Conclusion Myopia management is not implemented consistently across the UK. To improve accessibility, changes are required at multiple levels, from individual ECPs through to wider stakeholders in UK eyecare provision.