Simon Backhouse

Myopia control, as opposed to myopia correction, is emerging as the new standard of care for clinical management of paediatric myopia by optometrists. The prevalence of myopia, and high myopia, is increasing worldwide, while the prevalence of pathologies associated with myopia increases with increasing axial length. With increasing global prevalence, preventing the axial elongation and pathologies associated with higher levels of myopia is therefore of paramount importance. Pharmacological management with atropine is one of the key myopia control options available to practitioners. Management with 1% atropine shows positive control effects but induces significant visual side effects in paediatic patients due to cycloplegia and mydriasis. The initial studies on the efficacy of low-dose atropine (<0.1%) have led to a significant increase in both publications (50% of all atropine myopia control papers having been published in the past 4 years) and practitioner prescribing. In this review, the advantages and disadvantages of low-dose atropine are explored to provide practitioners with an evidence-based approach to use in their practice.

Antimicrobial stewardship aims to improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and used by patients, to ensure safe appropriate use, and to prevent and contain antimicrobial resistance. Australian optometrists can prescribe a range of antimicrobial agents, but to what extent they consider antimicrobial stewardship is not known. This study evaluated what final-year optometry students and optometrists understood about antimicrobial stewardship in eye care and considered relevance to oral prescribing and education. A knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) questionnaire was developed comprising four sections: i) demographic questions, ii) 10 multiple choice questions regarding Knowledge about antimicrobial agents and likely pathogens, diagnosis, treatment, and preventing resistance, iii) 10 Likert rating scale questions about thoughts and Attitudes, iv) mix of question types (5× MCQ: course of action, 16 Likert scale: confidence) related to Practice (diagnosis, management, and prescribing). Descriptive analyses were conducted (medians, mean±SD, and distributions). Thirteen students and 36 optometrists completed the survey. Both groups had a good understanding of microbial resistance and antibiotic prescribing for ocular conditions; average knowledge scores were 9.2 ± 0.7 and 8.7 ± 1.1 for students and practitioners, respectively. Scores were neutral to agree for questions related to the need for more educational programs. The answers of practice-related MCQs had a dichotomy of answers indicating a diversity of opinion, as can be the case in practice. Average total practice confidence scores were approximately 57/80 for students and 68/80 for optometrists. Optometrists and students were very confident in their ability to conduct an appropriate case history and use their knowledge and clinical skills, including slit lamp anterior eye assessment. The lowest confidence scores were for conducting microbial testing, i.e. taking swabs for pathology. Student and optometrist knowledge, attitudes, and practice around antimicrobial stewardship were high and in line with other health professions globally. There is scope for increased stewardship training.

Background: The aim of the present study was to provide ocular biometry percentile values for Indian children between the ages of 6 and 12 and to validate the usefulness of centiles in predicting myopia development. Methods: The study was part of a longitudinal study—the Sankara Nethralaya Tamil Nadu Essilor Myopia Study (STEM), where objective refraction and ocular biometry were measured for children studying in grades 1, 4, and 6 at baseline (2019–2020). These data were used to generate ocular biometry percentile curves (both for axial length (AL) and AL/corneal curvature (AL/CR) ratios). The usefulness of percentile values in predicting myopia development was estimated from follow-up data (2022). Results: The total number of children in the three grades at baseline was 4514 (age range 6 to 12). Boys represented 54% (n = 2442) of the overall sample. The prevalence of myopia at baseline was 11.7% (95% CI from 10.8 to 12.7%) in these three grades. Both the AL and AL/CR ratio centiles showed a linear trend with an increase in AL and AL/CR with increasing grades (p < 0.001) for all percentiles (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, 95, 98, and 99) when stratified by sex. In the follow-up data (n = 377), the 75th and 50th percentiles of the AL/CR ratio had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 and 0.72 to predict myopia onset for grade 4 and 6 children at baseline. Combining baseline AL with the centile shift in follow-up as a predictor increased the AUC to 0.83. Conclusions: The present study has provided centile values specific for Indian children between the ages of 6 and 12 to monitor and intervene where children are at a higher risk of myopia development.

Purpose: To report the baseline prevalence of myopia among school children in Tamil Nadu, South India from a prospective cohort study. Methods: Children between the ages of 5 and 16 years from 11 schools in two districts of Tamil Nadu underwent vision screening. All children underwent visual acuity assessment using a Pocket Vision Screener followed by non‐cycloplegic open‐field autorefraction (Grand Seiko WAM‐5500). Myopia was defined as a spherical equivalent (SE) refraction of ≤−0.75 D and high myopia was defined as SE ≤ −6.00 D. Distribution of refraction, biometry and factors associated with prevalence of myopia were the outcome measures. Results: A total of 14,699 children completed vision screening, with 2% (357) of them having ocular abnormalities other than refractive errors or poor vision despite spectacle correction. The remaining 14,342 children (7557 boys; 52.69%) had a mean age of 10.2 (Standard Deviation [SD] 2.8) years. A total of 2502 had myopia in at least one eye, a prevalence of 17.5% (95% CI: 14.7–20.5%), and 74 (0.5%; 95% CI: 0.3–0.9%) had high myopia. Myopia prevalence increased with age ( p < 0.001), but sex was not associated with myopia prevalence ( p = 0.24). Mean axial length (AL; 23.08 (SD = 0.91) mm) and mean anterior chamber depth (ACD; 3.45 (SD = 0.27) mm) positively correlated with age ( p < 0.001). The mean flat (K1; 43.37 (SD = 1.49) D) and steep (K2; 44.50 (SD = 1.58) D) corneal curvatures showed negative correlation with age ( p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively). In the multivariable logistic regression, older age and urban school location had higher odds for prevalence of myopia. Conclusion: The baseline prevalence of myopia among 5‐ to 16‐year‐old children in South India is larger than that found in previous studies, indicating that myopia is becoming a major public health problem in this country.

The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic autorefraction with an open-field auto refractor in a school vision screening set up, and to define a threshold for myopia that agrees with the standard cycloplegic refraction threshold. The study was conducted as part of the Sankara Nethralaya Tamil Nadu Essilor Myopia (STEM) study, which investigated the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors for myopia among children in South India. Children from two schools aged 5 to 15 years, with no ocular abnormalities and whose parents gave informed consent for cycloplegic refraction were included in the study. All the children underwent visual acuity assessment (Pocket Vision Screener, Elite school of Optometry, India), followed by non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic (1% tropicamide) open-field autorefraction (Grand Seiko, WAM-5500). A total of 387 children were included in the study, of whom 201 were boys. The mean (SD) age of the children was 12.2 (±2.1) years. Overall, the mean difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) open-field autorefraction measures was 0.34 D (limits of agreement (LOA), 1.06 D to −0.38 D). For myopes, the mean difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic SE was 0.13 D (LOA, 0.63D to −0.36D). The prevalence of myopia was 12% (95% CI, 8% to 15%) using the threshold of cycloplegic SE ≤ −0.50 D, and was 14% (95% CI, 11% to 17%) with SE ≤ −0.50 D using non-cycloplegic refraction. When myopia was defined as SE of ≤−0.75 D under non-cycloplegic conditions, there was no difference between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic open-field autorefraction prevalence estimates (12%; 95% CI, 8% to 15%; p = 1.00). Overall, non-cycloplegic refraction underestimates hyperopia and overestimates myopia; but for subjects with myopia, this difference is minimal and not clinically significant. A threshold of SE ≤ −0.75 D agrees well for the estimation of myopia prevalence among children when using non-cycloplegic refraction and is comparable with the standard definition of cycloplegic myopic refraction of SE ≤ −0.50 D.

In December 2019, the world became aware of a highly contagious, unnamed virus. Since then the virus has been identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)1 and steps h...

We conducted a prospective, paired-eye, investigator masked study in 30 children with myopia (−1.25 D to −4.00 D; age 10 to 14 years) to test the efficacy of a novel multifocal orthokeratology (MOK) lens compared to conventional orthokeratology (OK) in slowing axial eye growth. The MOK lens molded a center-distance, multifocal surface onto the anterior cornea, with a concentric treatment zone power of +2.50 D. Children wore an MOK lens in one eye and a conventional OK lens in the fellow eye nightly for 18 months. Eye growth was monitored with non-contact ocular biometry. Over 18 months, MOK-treated eyes showed significantly less axial expansion than OK-treated eyes (axial length change: MOK 0.173 mm less than OK; p < 0.01), and inner axial length (posterior cornea to anterior sclera change: MOK 0.156 mm less than OK, p < 0.01). The reduced elongation was constant across different baseline progression rates (range −0.50 D/year to −2.00 D/year). Visual acuity was less in MOK vs. OK-treated eyes (e.g., at six months, MOK: 0.09 ± 0.01 vs. OK: 0.02 ± 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.01). We conclude that MOK lenses significantly reduce eye growth compared to conventional OK lenses over 18 months.