Effect of Repeated Low-Level Red-Light Therapy for Myopia Control in Children: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Jiang Y, Zhu Z, Tan X, Kong X, Zhong H, Zhang J, Xiong R, Yuan Y, Zeng J, Morgan IG, He M
Ophthalmology · 249 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- University or hospital
- State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology
- University or hospital
- Sun Yat-Sen University Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology
Based on 3 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2021-12-01 · Ophthalmology · vol. 129 · issue 5 · pp. 509–519
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 345 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 24.7× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 32 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Corneal surgery and disorders · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
- Keywords
- Medicine, Light therapy, Ophthalmology, Optometry, Internal medicine, Circadian rhythm
- MeSH
- humans, myopia, disease progression, refraction, ocular, phototherapy, single-blind method, eyeglasses, child
11 authors
From CN, AU
- Yu JiangSun Yat-sen University
- Zhuoting ZhuSun Yat-sen University
- Xingping TanCentral South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Xiangbin KongSouthern Medical University
- Hui ZhongShenzhen Children's Hospital
- Jian ZhangSun Yat-sen University
Abstract
Purpose
To assess the efficacy and safety of repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy in myopia control in children.
Design
Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, single-blind clinical trial.
Participants
Two hundred sixty-four eligible children 8 to 13 years of age with myopia of cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER) of -1.00 to -5.00 diopters (D), astigmatism of 2.50 D or less, anisometropia of 1.50 D or less, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 0.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or more were enrolled in July and August 2019. Follow-up was completed in September 2020.
Methods
Children were assigned randomly to the intervention group (RLRL treatment plus single-vision spectacle [SVS]) and the control group (SVS). The RLRL treatment was provided by a desktop light therapy device that emits red light of 650-nm wavelength at an illuminance level of approximately 1600 lux and a power of 0.29 mW for a 4-mm pupil (class I classification) and was administered at home under supervision of parents for 3 minutes per session, twice daily with a minimum interval of 4 hours, 5 days per week.
Main outcome measures
The primary outcome and a key secondary outcome were changes in axial length and SER measured at baseline and the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up visits. Participants who had at least 1 postrandomization follow-up visit were analyzed for treatment efficacy based on a longitudinal mixed model.
Results
Among 264 randomized participants, 246 children (93.2%) were included in the analysis (117 in the RLRL group and 129 in the SVS group). Adjusted 12-month axial elongation and SER progression were 0.13 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.17mm) and -0.20 D (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.11D) for RLRL treatment and 0.38 mm (95% CI, 0.34-0.42 mm) and -0.79 D (95% CI, -0.88 to -0.69 D) for SVS treatment. The differences in axial elongation and SER progression were 0.26 mm (95% CI, 0.20-0.31 mm) and -0.59D (95% CI, -0.72 to -0.46 D) between the RLRL and SVS groups. No severe adverse events (sudden vision loss ≥2 lines or scotoma), functional visual loss indicated by BCVA, or structural damage seen on OCT scans were observed.
Conclusions
Repeated low-level red-light therapy is a promising alternative treatment for myopia control in children with good user acceptability and no documented functional or structural damage.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.