Combining 0.01% atropine with soft multifocal contact lenses (SMCLs) failed to demonstrate better myopia control than SMCLs alone.
The Bifocal & Atropine in Myopia (BAM) Study investigated whether combining 0.01% atropine and SMCLs with +2.50-D add power leads to greater slowing of myopia progression and axial elongation than SMCLs alone.
Participants of the BAM Study wore SMCLs with +2.50-D add power daily and administered 0.01% atropine eye drops nightly (n = 46). The BAM subjects (bifocal-atropine) were age-matched to 46 participants in the Bifocal Lenses in Nearsighted Kids Study who wore SMCLs with +2.50-D add power (bifocal) and 46 Bifocal Lenses in Nearsighted Kids participants who wore single-vision contact lenses (single vision). The primary outcome was the 3-year change in spherical equivalent refractive error determined by cycloplegic autorefraction, and the 3-year change in axial elongation was also evaluated.
Of the total 138 subjects, the mean ± standard deviation age was 10.1 ± 1.2 years, and the mean ± standard deviation spherical equivalent was −2.28 ± 0.89 D. The 3-year adjusted mean myopia progression was −0.52 D for bifocal-atropine, −0.55 D for bifocal, and −1.09 D for single vision. The difference in myopia progression was 0.03 D (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.14 to 0.21 D) for bifocal-atropine versus bifocal and 0.57 D (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.77 D) for bifocal-atropine versus single vision. The 3-year adjusted axial elongation was 0.31 mm for bifocal-atropine, 0.39 mm for bifocal, and 0.68 mm for single vision. The difference in axial elongation was −0.08 mm (95% CI, −0.16 to 0.002 mm) for bifocal-atropine versus bifocal and −0.37 mm (95% CI, −0.46 to −0.28 mm) for bifocal-atropine versus single vision.
Adding 0.01% atropine to SMCLs with +2.50-D add power failed to demonstrate better myopia control than SMCLs alone.
Jones, Jenny Huang PhD, OD, MPH1∗; Mutti, Donald O. OD, PhD, FAAO1; Jones-Jordan, Lisa A. PhD, FAAO1; Walline, Jeffrey J. OD, PhD, FAAO1
Optometry and Vision Science: May 2022 – Volume 99 – Issue 5 – p 434-442doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001884