Longitudinal Changes and Predictive Value of Choroidal Thickness for Myopia Control after Repeated Low-Level Red-Light Therapy
Xiong R, Zhu Z, Jiang Y, Wang W, Zhang J, Chen Y, Bulloch G, Yuan Y, Zhang S, Xuan M, Zeng J, He M
Ophthalmology · 117 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
- Grants
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81271037); National Natural Science Foundation of China (81420108008)
Based on 1 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2022-10-11 · Ophthalmology · vol. 130 · issue 3 · pp. 286–296
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 155 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 17.6× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 39 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies · Retinal Diseases and Treatments · Retinopathy of Prematurity Studies
- Keywords
- Medicine, Ophthalmology, Predictive value, Longitudinal study, Optometry, Value (mathematics), Internal medicine
- MeSH
- choroid, humans, myopia, tomography, optical coherence, refraction, ocular, phototherapy, visual acuity, child, axial length, eye
12 authors
From CN, AU
- Ruilin XiongSun Yat-sen University
- Zhuoting ZhuSun Yat-sen University; The University of Melbourne; Centre for Eye Research Australia
- Yu JiangSun Yat-sen University
- Wei WangSun Yat-sen University
- Jian ZhangSun Yat-sen University
- Yanping ChenSun Yat-sen University
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate longitudinal changes in macular choroidal thickness (mCT) in myopic children treated for 1 year with repeated low-level red-light (RLRL) therapy and their predictive value for treatment efficacy on myopia control.
Design
A secondary analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT04073238).
Participants
Myopic children aged 8-13 years who participated in the RCT at 2 of 5 sites where mCT measurements were available.
Methods
Repeated low-level red-light therapy was delivered using a home-use desktop light device that emitted red-light at 650 nm. Choroidal thickness was measured by SS-OCT at baseline and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Visual acuity, axial length (AL), cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (SER), and treatment compliance were measured.
Main outcome measures
Changes in mCT at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months relative to baseline, and their associations with myopia control.
Results
A total of 120 children were included in the analysis (RLRL group: n = 60; single-vision spectacle [SVS] group: n = 60). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups. In the RLRL group, changes in mCT from baseline remained positive over 1 year, with a maximal increase of 14.755 μm at 1 month and gradually decreasing from 5.286 μm at 3 months to 1.543 μm at 6 months, finally reaching 9.089 μm at 12 months. In the SVS group, mCT thinning was observed, with changes from baseline of -1.111, -8.212, -10.190, and -10.407 μm at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Satisfactory myopia control was defined as annual progression rates of less than 0, 0.05, or 0.10 mm for AL and less than 0, 0.25, or 0.50 diopters for SER. Models that included mCT changes at 3 months alone had acceptable predictive discrimination of satisfactory myopia control over 12 months, with areas under the curve of 0.710-0.786. The predictive performance of the models did not significantly improve after adding age, gender, and baseline AL or SER.
Conclusions
This analysis from a multicenter RCT found RLRL induced sustained choroidal thickening over the full course of treatment. Macular choroidal thickness changes at 3 months alone can predict 12-month myopia control efficacy with reasonable accuracy.
Financial disclosure(s)
Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
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.