Case series: Switching myopia management therapies in a real-world academic clinic.

SIGNIFICANCE: Slowing myopia progression is quickly becoming the clinical standard of care, but little is known about how changing treatment alters treatment effect. This case series provides insight on how changing treatment modality may affect treatment outcomes in myopia management.

PURPOSE: Aiming to control myopia progression in children is becoming the clinical standard of care. Little is known about the effect of changing treatment on myopic progression. We present a case series of real-world myopia management patients who underwent a change in treatment method and report the observed effect on axial length.

METHODS

Clinical records from the University of Houston Myopia Management Service were reviewed to identify children who underwent a change in treatment. The analyzed dataset consisted of 44 clinic assessments from seven children including two who were switched from peripheral defocus soft contact lenses to orthokeratology, two who were switched from orthokeratology to peripheral defocus soft contact lenses, and three who received combination therapy following an initial period of treatment with either orthokeratology, peripheral defocus soft contact lenses, or atropine alone. Axial length measurements were adjusted by subtracting central corneal thickness from the raw axial length value and then converted to an annualized rate (mm/y) by subtracting the previous corneal thickness-adjusted from the current corneal thickness-adjusted axial length and dividing by elapsed time between the successive clinic visits.

RESULTS

Age at initial assessment ranged from 6.6 to 12.6 years (M = 9.3 ± 2.4) with follow-up times ranging between 26 and 78 months (M = 43 ± 18.5). Each individual had a minimum of two clinical visits per treatment type. The mean (SD) for central corneal thickness-annualized adjusted axial length growth in both the eyes and chronological age at the beginning of each treatment type was calculated. Estimated progression rates are summarized separately for each individual and treatment. Data are grouped by patients who switched treatments for either lack of efficacy or other clinical issues.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, there are various reasons that necessitate a change in treatment. In this sample, change in treatment continued to show slowing of myopia progression, regardless of reason for change.